- Unless due to a health issue such as iron deficiency, slow growth can just be part of the ageing process. Brittleness can be countered with a nail oil, applied several times a day. Lack of water intake can also also be associated with peeling and breaking nails, so don't forget to drink enough.
- A powdery finish on nails might be a sign of dehydration. Massage in a cuticle oil, moisturise after washing hands and use a heavy-duty night balm. Products that contain alcohol cause dryness, so reserve hand sanitisers for emergencies.
- Incorrect removal of gels can damage nails, so never pick off the colour as you will take off a layer of the natural nail plate. Acetone remover is also very drying. Having regular gels weakens nails over time, no matter how carefully removed.
- Ridged nails are caused by several things, including age and nail damage. Use cuticle oil regularly at base of nail to revive the nail plate, and help protect from further ridges developing.
- Over-exposure to water (e.g. frequent hand washing) can cause nails to peel. Ask for a soak-free manicure. Always wear gloves when washing up.
- If you are not a polish wearer: massage a cuticle oil in a backwards motion; never cut the cuticles, as it only makes the cuticle grow back thicker; then use a three-way buffer for natural shine, but don't overbuff as this will make nails thinner.
- File it right. The goal is to shape the nail rather than trim it down (always use a clipper for that). Apply gently pressure when filing; don't use a see-saw motion as this cause all the layers of the nail to lift and peel. For the same reason, always bevel down in one direction.
- Use an emery board. Glass files are softer but you risk overdoing it as it takes longer to see results.
- When trimming nails, use the sides of the clipper to nibble across the nails as this puts less pressure on them.
- A 'squoval' shape (round at the sides and straight at the top) gives the most natural strength to your nails. Round nails tend to have a weaker tip, while perfectly square nails can catch at the sides.
Sunday, 5 April 2020
Nail Care Tips
To keep your nails in the best condition, follow these tips.
Sunday, 29 March 2020
Taking Back Control of Our Land
Land for the Many: Changing the way our fundamental asset is used, owned and governed. (An independent report commissioned by the Labour Party. Read in full at https://landforthemany.uk/)
This is my summary based on a column by George Monbiot.
Land in the UK is now in the hands of a small number of people. This has resulted in increasing inequality and exclusion, high cost of renting or buying a home, the collapse of wildlife and ecosystems, repeated financial crises and the loss of public space.
Since 1995, land values in the UK have risen 412% and accounts for 51% of the UK's net worth. Successive governments have used tax exemptions and other advantages to use the ground as a speculative money machine. A Tax Justice UK report (2019) reveals that by owning agricultural land, 261 rich families escaped £280m in inheritance tax in 2015-16. With farmland being used as a tax shelter, farmers are being priced out.
The value of agricultural land can rise 250-fold when planning permission is given and the owner gets to keep most of it. We pay for this with higher rents and mortgages. Capital gains tax is lower than income tax, and council tax is proportionately more expensive for the poor than for the rich. The land under homes now accounts for 70% of their price. Rather than save for three years for a deposit, the average family now needs to save for 19 years. Housing costs take 36% of household costs for renters and 12% for those with mortgages.
We wrongly blame immigration, population growth, the green belt and red tape, when the real culprits are the tax and financial advantages for landowners and building companies, and the shift in bank lending to the housing sector. These issues are also responsible for the loss of public spaces in cities, limited right to roam, lack of allotments and farmland, and impact on the environment.
The six experts who wrote the report propose the following.
Source: Landfall by George Monbiot, 12 June 2019. https://www.monbiot.com/2019/06/12/landfall/
This is my summary based on a column by George Monbiot.
Land in the UK is now in the hands of a small number of people. This has resulted in increasing inequality and exclusion, high cost of renting or buying a home, the collapse of wildlife and ecosystems, repeated financial crises and the loss of public space.
Since 1995, land values in the UK have risen 412% and accounts for 51% of the UK's net worth. Successive governments have used tax exemptions and other advantages to use the ground as a speculative money machine. A Tax Justice UK report (2019) reveals that by owning agricultural land, 261 rich families escaped £280m in inheritance tax in 2015-16. With farmland being used as a tax shelter, farmers are being priced out.
The value of agricultural land can rise 250-fold when planning permission is given and the owner gets to keep most of it. We pay for this with higher rents and mortgages. Capital gains tax is lower than income tax, and council tax is proportionately more expensive for the poor than for the rich. The land under homes now accounts for 70% of their price. Rather than save for three years for a deposit, the average family now needs to save for 19 years. Housing costs take 36% of household costs for renters and 12% for those with mortgages.
We wrongly blame immigration, population growth, the green belt and red tape, when the real culprits are the tax and financial advantages for landowners and building companies, and the shift in bank lending to the housing sector. These issues are also responsible for the loss of public spaces in cities, limited right to roam, lack of allotments and farmland, and impact on the environment.
The six experts who wrote the report propose the following.
- Replace council tax with a progressive property tax payable by owners, not tenants.
- Empty homes automatically taxed at a higher rate.
- Inheritance tax replaced with a lifetime gift tax.
- Capital gains tax on second homes and investment properties should match or exceed the rate of income tax.
- Replace business rates with a land value tax, based on rental value.
- A 15% offshore tax should be levied on properties owned through tax havens.
- New public development corporations should work with local authorities to assemble the land needed for affordable homes and new communities.
- Builders would compete on quality, rather than amassing land banks.
- These public corporations would use compulsory purchase to buy land at agricultural prices (not those artificially raised by planning permission).
- A community participation agency to help people (not big companies) become the driving force in creating local plans and infrastructure.
- A new definition of public space, with legal right to use.
- Tighter rent and eviction controls.
- Compulsory sale orders to bring vacant and derelict land onto the market and give community groups first rights to purchase it.
- Set up a new body - the Common Ground Trust. When people can't afford to buy a home, the Trust could purchase the land, and they pay only for bricks and mortar (about 30% of the cost). They then pay the Trust a land rent.
Source: Landfall by George Monbiot, 12 June 2019. https://www.monbiot.com/2019/06/12/landfall/
Sunday, 22 March 2020
Premature Babies
Average length of pregnancy.
Because they have not completed normal growth in the womb, premature babies may suffer from behavioural difficulties, long term health problems or cerebral palsy. Some research indicates that the earlier the birth, the more likely the risk of having special educational needs.
Death rates 2017: In the UK, 1,267 babies born after 24 weeks gestation died in their first 28 days of life.
Causes: In the UK, in 25% of preterm births the cause was planned delivery due to other conditions (e.g. pre-eclampsia, kidney disease or growth restriction). The remaining 75% of preterm births were unplanned and the cause often unknown or unclear.
Premature birth rate in UK
The UK rate of preterm births has not declined in the last 10 years. Possible reasons for lack of decline are thought to be that there are more older mothers, who are more likely to have high BMI, and/or more likely to be using assisted conception (e.g. IVF and ICSI), and to have multiple births.
Source: various (2019 figures unless otherwise noted).
- Single = 40 weeks
- Twins = 37 weeks
- Triplets = 33 weeks
- Less than 28 weeks = Extremely preterm
- Between 28 and 32 weeks = Very preterm
- Between 32 and 37 weeks = Moderate to late preterm
Because they have not completed normal growth in the womb, premature babies may suffer from behavioural difficulties, long term health problems or cerebral palsy. Some research indicates that the earlier the birth, the more likely the risk of having special educational needs.
Death rates 2017: In the UK, 1,267 babies born after 24 weeks gestation died in their first 28 days of life.
Causes: In the UK, in 25% of preterm births the cause was planned delivery due to other conditions (e.g. pre-eclampsia, kidney disease or growth restriction). The remaining 75% of preterm births were unplanned and the cause often unknown or unclear.
Premature birth rate in UK
- Currently 1 in 13 babies (between 7% and 8% of all births) are born prematurely in the UK: in total this is around 60,000 each year.
- The UK survival rate of births between 22 and 26 weeks have improved.
Survival rate was 40% in 1995 and increased to 53% in 2006.
The UK rate of preterm births has not declined in the last 10 years. Possible reasons for lack of decline are thought to be that there are more older mothers, who are more likely to have high BMI, and/or more likely to be using assisted conception (e.g. IVF and ICSI), and to have multiple births.
Source: various (2019 figures unless otherwise noted).
Sunday, 15 March 2020
Making Your Charity Giving Count
Like many other people, I give money and goods to charities. But how can I make the most difference? The Most Good You Can Do by Peter Singer gives some good advice. While written from a US viewpoint, much of what he writes is applicable to anyone. [I've turned the US$ examples into £ equivalents, but the figures are from 2015.]
Should I give lots to one or two charities or small amounts to lots of charities?
Donating to restore sight is more cost-effective than giving to train a guide dog as more people benefit. Other charities which make a big difference are the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and the Fistula Foundation.
Give Directly makes one-off cash grants of about £800 to African families living in extreme poverty. This is equivalent to giving them at least 6 month's income, and in some cases a whole year's income.
In the US you can make tax-deductable donations, which actually means that taxpayers pay for about 40% of donations from high-income people, thus drawing money away from areas of government that do more good than charity work. [Also there seem to be no restrictions on the organisation you donate to, e.g. the National Rifle Association Whittington Centre, which describes itself as America's finest shooting facility.]
In the UK using Gift Aid, you get tax relief when donating to a charity (registered with the Charity Commissioners) or community amateur sports club. A charity is established for charitable purposes only, so must provide a public benefit, and is subject to the High Court's charity law jurisdiction. Political parties are not charities. Gift Aid is currently (2020) set at 25p in the £ if you pay tax at basic rate, there is a different rate for higher income earners. [Again there is an issue over drawing money away from areas of government.]
Look at the charity's revenue. How much is spent on administration (including fundraising)? But bear in mind that this does not tell you everything - how effective is what they actually do?
Give Well evaluates the performance of charities, looking at donations, administration costs and effectiveness of programmes. Some major aid organisations (Oxfam, CARE, International Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, Save the Children, World Vision) don't make it on to the Give Well list of recommended organisations as they run multiple programs (including advocacy) which are difficult to evaluate.
Poverty Action Lab and Innovations for Poverty Action evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions (e.g. insecticide impregnated bed-nets to combat malaria, de-worming poor children, and cash grants to poor families).
END
Should I give lots to one or two charities or small amounts to lots of charities?
- Donating to lots of charities gives you the feel good factor.
- But donating £8 or less means processing the donation may exceed any benefit gained.
- Donating larger amounts to a few charities means your gift should have more impact.
- But it's also important to find out what the charity does, and how effective its work is.
- Often we are drawn to helping a specific child on a website, but we may also be pulled by nation, region or ethnic group.
- But we should not be asking what is the most urgent issue - which not be easily achievable. What we really need to ask is 'Where can I do the most good?'
Donating to restore sight is more cost-effective than giving to train a guide dog as more people benefit. Other charities which make a big difference are the International Planned Parenthood Foundation and the Fistula Foundation.
Give Directly makes one-off cash grants of about £800 to African families living in extreme poverty. This is equivalent to giving them at least 6 month's income, and in some cases a whole year's income.
In the US you can make tax-deductable donations, which actually means that taxpayers pay for about 40% of donations from high-income people, thus drawing money away from areas of government that do more good than charity work. [Also there seem to be no restrictions on the organisation you donate to, e.g. the National Rifle Association Whittington Centre, which describes itself as America's finest shooting facility.]
In the UK using Gift Aid, you get tax relief when donating to a charity (registered with the Charity Commissioners) or community amateur sports club. A charity is established for charitable purposes only, so must provide a public benefit, and is subject to the High Court's charity law jurisdiction. Political parties are not charities. Gift Aid is currently (2020) set at 25p in the £ if you pay tax at basic rate, there is a different rate for higher income earners. [Again there is an issue over drawing money away from areas of government.]
Look at the charity's revenue. How much is spent on administration (including fundraising)? But bear in mind that this does not tell you everything - how effective is what they actually do?
Give Well evaluates the performance of charities, looking at donations, administration costs and effectiveness of programmes. Some major aid organisations (Oxfam, CARE, International Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, Save the Children, World Vision) don't make it on to the Give Well list of recommended organisations as they run multiple programs (including advocacy) which are difficult to evaluate.
Poverty Action Lab and Innovations for Poverty Action evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions (e.g. insecticide impregnated bed-nets to combat malaria, de-worming poor children, and cash grants to poor families).
END
Sunday, 8 March 2020
How to Improve Political Interviews
TV election debates have only been held in recent years, so broadcasters are still experimenting with the format. Will any be held, who will take place, how they will be organised, which topics will be included (or even the focus), and how the audience will be selected.
With controversy over all of the above, and the public view that many politicians do not acquit themselves on on such occasions, BBC's Martha Buckley gathered some tips for improving them.
Turn off the microphones
No-one likes people interrupting and talking over each other. Discussions become confrontations.
Solution: Switch off individual microphones when it is not that person's turn to speak. As soon as each person finished talking, turn them off.
Advantage: Knowing they will go silent could also stop 'filibustering' - trying to reduce the time available by others by refusing to stop talking.
Force politicians to actually debate
At present UK televised debates 'tend to feature glitzy sets, rows of podiums and heavy intervention from moderators.' Compared to other countries, they are quite short which results in emphasis on sound bites and not much substance.
Solution: Longer two person debates with candidates sitting across a table and no studio audience. Can be two intellectual heavyweights focusing on serious issues, listening to each other's points and responding reasonably or more brutal encounters trading bitter insults.
Advantage:These make for more compelling viewing and viewers are left in little doubt about who stood for what.
Robot Fact Checkers
At present it seems we can't trust politicians to get the facts right and tell the truth - so debates become meaningless in helping voters understand intentions and promises. Fact-checking (e.g. independent fact-checking charity Full Fact and BBC Reality Check) helps but during a debate you would need to be looking at online updates or read the verdicts after the debate. So politicians might not be adequately held to account.
Solution: More use of on-screen fact checked text boxes during the debate. The challenge is to do it fast enough. Full Fact is developing software that can check facts faster than humans, and training machines to spot claims and trawl for relevant data.
Advantage: This is something that audiences really want and would mean less claims would pass unchallenged.
Ban Cheering and Clapping
Today audiences are less respectful and have become more polarised and more vocal - cheering, clapping and booing.
Solution: Go back to silence and aim for an audience of genuinely undecided voters.
Advantage: This would remove the distortion of audiences and change the atmosphere in the studio.
Make the Audience More Real
Ordinary members of the public are typically asked to submit questions but this might be taken further. But politicians can wriggle out of questions and deflect more detailed scrutiny, and appear removed from 'ordinary' people.
Solution 1: Ask people to send in video clips about their lives and problems, which could be used without prior knowledge of politicians at any point in mid-debate. Ask what they specifically could do to help this person.
Solution 2: Broadcasters could use a different format and ask politicians to convince a real voter while cameras roll.
Solution 3: A conversation, not a debate with a member of the public trying to find out about the politician, and how their life influences their policies and beliefs.
Advantage: This could help politicians make emotional connections with voters and could be riveting viewing.
Regulate Them
Broadcasters and politicians come up with different rules each time, as each works for conflicting aims. (1) Politicians want to get their message across and avoid any chance of a negative clip going viral. (2) Broadcasters want to make good TV. (3) There is a need in a democracy to actually inform voters. At present, (1) and (2) dominate at the expense of (3).
Solution: Follow the US and Canada, which each have an independent commission to organise official election debates.
Advantage: They have clear rules, consistent formulas for deciding who is invited to take part in which debates, and are the same each time.
[In the UK, Sky News has a Make Debates Happen campaign. Despite more than 140,000 signatures, the parliamentary debate on the petition failed. The Government responded 'Televised election debates are a matter for political parties. The government has no plans to change electoral law to make the debates mandatory.']
My reaction: Oh well, turkeys don't vote for Christmas, do they?
Source: BBC news item by Martha Buckley: Six Ways to Improve Political Interviews on 6 Dec. 2019
With controversy over all of the above, and the public view that many politicians do not acquit themselves on on such occasions, BBC's Martha Buckley gathered some tips for improving them.
Turn off the microphones
No-one likes people interrupting and talking over each other. Discussions become confrontations.
Solution: Switch off individual microphones when it is not that person's turn to speak. As soon as each person finished talking, turn them off.
Advantage: Knowing they will go silent could also stop 'filibustering' - trying to reduce the time available by others by refusing to stop talking.
Force politicians to actually debate
At present UK televised debates 'tend to feature glitzy sets, rows of podiums and heavy intervention from moderators.' Compared to other countries, they are quite short which results in emphasis on sound bites and not much substance.
Solution: Longer two person debates with candidates sitting across a table and no studio audience. Can be two intellectual heavyweights focusing on serious issues, listening to each other's points and responding reasonably or more brutal encounters trading bitter insults.
Advantage:These make for more compelling viewing and viewers are left in little doubt about who stood for what.
Robot Fact Checkers
At present it seems we can't trust politicians to get the facts right and tell the truth - so debates become meaningless in helping voters understand intentions and promises. Fact-checking (e.g. independent fact-checking charity Full Fact and BBC Reality Check) helps but during a debate you would need to be looking at online updates or read the verdicts after the debate. So politicians might not be adequately held to account.
Solution: More use of on-screen fact checked text boxes during the debate. The challenge is to do it fast enough. Full Fact is developing software that can check facts faster than humans, and training machines to spot claims and trawl for relevant data.
Advantage: This is something that audiences really want and would mean less claims would pass unchallenged.
Ban Cheering and Clapping
Today audiences are less respectful and have become more polarised and more vocal - cheering, clapping and booing.
Solution: Go back to silence and aim for an audience of genuinely undecided voters.
Advantage: This would remove the distortion of audiences and change the atmosphere in the studio.
Make the Audience More Real
Ordinary members of the public are typically asked to submit questions but this might be taken further. But politicians can wriggle out of questions and deflect more detailed scrutiny, and appear removed from 'ordinary' people.
Solution 1: Ask people to send in video clips about their lives and problems, which could be used without prior knowledge of politicians at any point in mid-debate. Ask what they specifically could do to help this person.
Solution 2: Broadcasters could use a different format and ask politicians to convince a real voter while cameras roll.
Solution 3: A conversation, not a debate with a member of the public trying to find out about the politician, and how their life influences their policies and beliefs.
Advantage: This could help politicians make emotional connections with voters and could be riveting viewing.
Regulate Them
Broadcasters and politicians come up with different rules each time, as each works for conflicting aims. (1) Politicians want to get their message across and avoid any chance of a negative clip going viral. (2) Broadcasters want to make good TV. (3) There is a need in a democracy to actually inform voters. At present, (1) and (2) dominate at the expense of (3).
Solution: Follow the US and Canada, which each have an independent commission to organise official election debates.
Advantage: They have clear rules, consistent formulas for deciding who is invited to take part in which debates, and are the same each time.
[In the UK, Sky News has a Make Debates Happen campaign. Despite more than 140,000 signatures, the parliamentary debate on the petition failed. The Government responded 'Televised election debates are a matter for political parties. The government has no plans to change electoral law to make the debates mandatory.']
My reaction: Oh well, turkeys don't vote for Christmas, do they?
Source: BBC news item by Martha Buckley: Six Ways to Improve Political Interviews on 6 Dec. 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)