It doesn't quite say nothing...it's fairly clear - the authors are claiming causation when they can only prove correlation and other plausible explanations exist. As for your question, I'd say it's impossible to say without proper evidence, but my hypothesis would be that the figure would be much closer to zero (but not zero) than 120,000.
Which assumes that all/any other policy options would have led to zero premature deaths. Again, unprovable, but I'd think highly unlikely. Spending a lot of money you don't have only causes greater pain down the line...
As does giving unnecessary tax cuts to big business and the rich, as well as cutting essential services to the poor and needy.....
Yes, I agree, there may be other causal factors, but the Fullfact conclusion doesn't disprove the claim, it just says the findings should be 'treated with a bit of caution'. What if the true number is indeed a lot closer to zero than 120,000, say 10,000? That's still something to be ashamed of.
A local man in my area just committed suicide ( didnt know him). His partner reported in the local rag that he was 6 months in to a 14 month waiting list to see the mental health team. **** that though, it's the police chiefs, bankers and other bigwigs who deserve a helping hand.
I agree that it doesn't disprove the findings fully, but I think the onus is on those making the claim (the authors and those citing it) to prove the claim is true, which I don't think they have. They are making a link between two things (number of deaths per year declining and austerity) without proving cause. I'd add that there is a complexity around aggregate data here - let's take your figure of 10,000 lives, for the same period as the data, seven years between 2010-2017. So approximately 700 per year. What the study is not talking about is 700 individuals, and is instead talking about aggregate months less life from the c.500,000 people that die in the UK each year. I think aggregating up to a much larger figure and painting these as 'whole lives' instead of a few months from many, is rather misleading and presumably intended to grab headlines. It's certainly not something to be happy about - and I never understood those on the right who crowed so positively about austerity. To be clear - I'm not saying it's positive, simply that it was an economic reality and there was little other choice. Darling's final budget planned cuts as deep as Osborne ended up enacting. I suspect that this is probably a fundamental difference of economic philosophy which we won't settle on here, but I hope you can at least see why I am a little sceptical of those repeating the 120,000 claim without critical thought...
To be fair Col, I can only speak from personal experience and when I’ve met John McDonnell during local disputes with my ex-company he was always very courteous and extremely supportive when we were basically being shafted to make yet more profit for the bosses, whilst losing the hard fought conditions we’d earn. He has a good reputation in the area I used to live as someone who was and is willing to take the side of the ‘small man’ against the multi-corps. Personally I like him.
No, not beyond existing law. I’m not a fan of right wingers crying with faux rage over a comedian’s joke whilst clearly itching for their own supporters to kick off when they don’t get their own way.
Prepare for it to get a lot worse if Boris gets in and he takes us on a bumpy ride to remove the EU shackles once and for all. I'm no fan of Boris either (I'd be happy if the other candidates banded together to get Raab in) but if he resolves the Brexit log jam, his legacy will be assured where Theresa May's is most definitely not. The TV debates next week may be interesting - jury's out on whether Boris will pitch up with a "make the UK great again" cap on!
He’ll avoid answering every question, use some long words, some of which don’t make sense and most of the country’s over-50s will clap like ****ing seals. Just my prediction.
Yes, and if a right wing comedian (if you can find one) made a joke about throwing battery acid at one of Jo Cox's parliamentary colleagues, the antifas would be standing around saying, "Yeah, fair enough, nothing wrong with that comment"
You could be right. I've never seen the appeal of Boris. He's too accident prone, due largely to being too lazy to get into the detail of his brief. If he makes it to PM, then no 10 will have to manage him carefully
When Jo Cox has been murdered and other politicians since have been seriously threatened, I think Brand's comment was pretty f***** stupid. But then it was meant as a joke, she is a comedian, and has apologised for it. What Farage, who acts like a comedian but is not, said about needing to take weapons to the front line for his political persuasions was far more serious, coming from a politician who millions have voted for, and seems to have ambitions to become PM. Yet have the police been asked to consider an investigation of him? That bloke should have been locked away for advocating armed insurrection.
