this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
44 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3023 readers
151 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Every time the government of a country with 65+ million citizens change any policy, even the most obscure one, people die. Statistically that’s just the way it is with that many people.

I’m not saying 4000 is insignificant, I’m just saying the government can’t be paralysed from making decisions.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They could make decisions that actually benefit people for one.

And I would love a source that shows any policy change kills people. Sounds like ripe bullshit to me.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 6 days ago

Yes, hold on, I’ll go and find my list of every policy reviewed against how many people it will kill.

Of course that doesn’t exist.

My point is that if you make the slightest statistical change, when you multiply it by 65 million, you’ll get something happening.

Change how much fertiliser farmers are allowed to wash into stream by a millionth; give slightly more to councils to fix potholes; change what day of the week pensions are paid out; change the frequency with which airports have to check for moisture in their fuel depots; allow a new type of plastic to be used to reline leaky drainage pipes running under old buildings; change the percentage that side windows in cars are allowed to be darkened etc etc.

I’ll give you a concrete example; in many countries ibuprofen isn’t allowed to be bought over the counter, but only after a consultation with a pharmacist. That’s because if may cause as adverse reaction if your stomach lining is affected by other medicines or illness. This kills people. Yet we happily keep buying it over the counter because it’s convenient and works better than paracetamol.

Should we move ibuprofen behind a pharmacist consultation?

Everything is a trade off when you’re dealing with 65 million people.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't understand how this can happen through them losing £300 when the triple lock is set to increase by ~£700 this year.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Costs in genral have gone uk by way more then 700 a year.

For those renting Rent alone will be higher the. That. And housing benifit etc is means tested the same way this is now.

That said. As I have said elaewhere in the thread.

If this payment is the dif between life and death. Then this is clearly not the issue. But the level of means testing. And media history of negativity to claiming benifits is.