Best Of

Where on earth did Labour find Mike Tapp ?

I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia

Good morning

Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians

This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson

I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now

Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position

Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society

Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump

Since when have we lost our moral compass?

Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.

Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office

This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office

I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue

Gone by Monday

In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job

What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared

Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer

Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good

Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now

When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-farooqi-others.pdf

Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.

Interesting point, probably true. That infamous guardian profile - “I never dream” - made the same observation. Starmer cannot take personal criticism or contradiction, he gets angry and red faced and loses the plot. A terrible flaw in politics

Indeed that might explain how we ended up with Lord Yum Yum as Ambo. Starmer made the decision to appoint him - then simply refused to hear the objections and got tetchy and annoyed when people questioned the decision. This happened at the beginning of his administration so Skyr was still in total command and the objectors backed down

The only time he looked good as leader was when effectively prosecuting Boris over partygate. That was a busman’s holiday. Ever since, and before, he is a rigid, humourless, snide who relies on the letter of the law rather than any human instinct

But I want him to stay, I love seeing him floundering

Where on earth did Labour find Mike Tapp ?

I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia

Good morning

Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians

This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson

I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now

Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position

Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society

Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump

Since when have we lost our moral compass?

Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.

Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office

This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office

I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue

Gone by Monday

In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job

What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared

Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer

Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good

Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now

He's not a politician, he's not capable of offering political leadership and he knows it, but he stayed in the Corbyn cabinet and became leader because he thought someone had to save Labour from the Corbynites and he couldn't see anyone else who could do it.

I expect he would have been pretty happy being attorney general during the Blair government, but he's well out of his depth and there's no life raft in view.

Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.

Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.

Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.

The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.

This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.

NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.

If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!

Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government

This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).

While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.

Couldn't you make the case that the NHS is abusing a monopsony position to pay artificially low prices?

No-one wants the NHS to pay US pharma prices, but perhaps it's been a bit too effective at driving prices down.

Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.

Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.

Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.

The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.

This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.

NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.

If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!

Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government

This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).

While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.

I don't that's quite right.

For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs.
For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer.
The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.

Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.

This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment.
Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades.
We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration.
As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.

With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.

Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.

There’s something else to consider. When Gordon Brown organised the 3G mobile frequency auction, he was warned by the UCL mathematicians employed to design it, that it optimised for cost only, not overall benefit.

Sure enough, companies dropped out of auction. The high prices caused a retrenchment in the industry, substantial job loses. The result was slower adoption.

The low price of drugs and lots of tax on companies is one part of the overall value to the U.K.

Yes, thought at the time (and have ever since) that was a massive economic error, which destroyed what was the then UK leadership of a global industry.

In effect, it was another means of prioritising day to day government spending over investment. Which has been our besetting sin for the last three decades.

Where on earth did Labour find Mike Tapp ?

I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia

Good morning

Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians

This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson

I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now

Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position

Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society

Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump

Since when have we lost our moral compass?

Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.

Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office

This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office

I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue

Is it? I haven't seen much coverage in foreign press and at the end of the day Mandelson's job as Ambassador is to build a strong relationship with the Trump administration which he has. He does not work for the Labour party, nor is he in the Cabinet so what Labour MPs think of him should be irrelevant.

I expect any alternative Ambassador would be worse and unless a criminal allegation emerges against him Mandelson may survive

Does it really matter who our ambassador is in DC? I have my doubts

The whole spectacle is mortifying, now. He has to go - he cannot stay - and I have no idea why Starmer is dithering, unless Starmer really is so stupid he cannot see the inevitable end

It’s must be that Starmer sees losing Mandy like that as potentially existential for himself

Yes that might be it. A perilous moment for Starmer

In a way I want Starmer to stay because he’s so disastrous for Labour. On the other hand, he’s disastrous for Britain so - on the whole - I want him gone

🙏

Where on earth did Labour find Mike Tapp ?

I was expecting him to say Gary Glitter was our new ambassador to Russia

Good morning

Last night on the immigration debate on Sky he wore a union jack tie so much a tradition for labour politicians

This morning, again on Sky, he was evasive about Mandelson being asked to attend FO affairs committee and even said everything is out now about Mandelson

I am very much in agreement with Labour mps and others that Mandelson has to go now

Epstein v Trump - cannot control Trump's position

Epstein v Andrew - ostracised by society

Epstein v Mandelson - cannot be moved because it may upset Trump

Since when have we lost our moral compass?

Ooh , ooh I know that one. When Boris Johnson became Foreign Secretary.

Fair comment but it doesn't excuse us keeping Mandelson in office

This story is world news and he shames our country as long as he remains in office

I expect this weekends papers will be all over this issue

Gone by Monday

In my geekiness I watched PMQ’s last night. To see this improved Badenoch performance. She was good - eloquent, stuck to her brief, pressed cleverly - but she’ll have to do a lot more than “good” to have a chance of saving her job

What surprised me was Starmer, and how bad he was. He’s a professional lawyer of high esteem? - he must have prepped for questions about Mandy. But he looked nonplussed, bewildered, even a bit scared

Starmer went into management, maybe he was never a good trial lawyer

Yet I’ve met people - in the judiciary - who say he WAS good

Something has happened to him. @Theuniondivvie made this point yesterday - a few years ago there was a different Starmer - fairly affable, articulate, persuasive. Never witty or charming but at least human. Not this sad flustered robot we have now

When acting as a barrister in court almost always the attacks and criticisms and the shrapnel that flies around are about the case, about someone or something else which is not you personally. It is fairly rare to be attacked on your probity or competence as such (and at Starmer's exalted level, never). For a rare exception of dramatic quality see perhaps:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-farooqi-others.pdf

Politics is different. And Starmer is being attacked for personal probity, judgment and competence in the Mandelson appointment. Everyone knows he is hiding stuff, and everyone knows it is wrong that Lord M is in his job. That is much harder to take. Defending an indefensible case or client in court is, by comparison, child's play.

Good morning everybody.

And is precisely why Starmer shouldn't have agreed to stand as Labour leader. Anyone who has climbed the political greasy pole has come to know that that's what happens to you, and has developed the skills and or temperament to shrug it off, especially if un-, or only partially, justified.
Starmer just didn't do his apprenticeship, articles or whatever you want to call it.

Incidentally, on the front I wonder whether it's the same in Canada and if so how Mark Carney is coping.

Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.

Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.

Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.

The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.

This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.

NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.

If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!

Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government

This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).

While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.

I don't that's quite right.

For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs.
For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer.
The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.

Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.

This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment.
Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades.
We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration.
As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.

With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.

Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.

There’s something else to consider. When Gordon Brown organised the 3G mobile frequency auction, he was warned by the UCL mathematicians employed to design it, that it optimised for cost only, not overall benefit.

Sure enough, companies dropped out of auction. The high prices caused a retrenchment in the industry, substantial job loses. The result was slower adoption.

The low price of drugs and lots of tax on companies is one part of the overall value to the U.K.

Good discussion on Today in the 6.30 ish business segment re the Merck pull-out from the UK. Highlights were that both guests (one a pharma analyst and the other was Sir Nigel Wilson, Life Sciences Industrial Strategy Implementation Board and is a member of the Science and Innovation Council.

Wilson said that he had spoken to Reeves last night at the FT drinks and is certain she understands the problem and has plans. He was remarkably comfortable with how easy it will be to encourage pension funds etc to invest in UK pharma/research by pulling a few levers.

Both were however also adamant that the UK needs to fix its pricing model with pharma companies as it’s going to drive them all away. Apparently we need to get the rebate the gov gets down to single figure % as it’s 23% currently and vastly higher than any other countries. This in itself I guess will cause other problems as it’s money I would assume goes back into the NHS which needs replacing.

The other problem with the high rebate was that a lot of drug companies were not releasing new drugs to the UK because the cost benefit wasn’t worth it for them and so UK patients are missing out.

This needs much more discussion by the likes of the opposition in order to make sure Reeves has to do something to fix it in the autumn budget. Maybe if Mandy quits, as he should, politicians could spend their time in this instead. Boring for us but ultimately better.

NICE makes recommendations on a QALY basis.

If a new product doesn’t hit a suitable threshold for its proposed price then why should patients expect it. Fine to tweak the formula, but I am missing out on the government buying me a new gulfstream and that makes me very angry!

Pharma used to love the PPRS. It allows them to maintain prices on innovative new drugs at the cost of reducing prices on off patent products. They are just taking advantage of a perceived weak government

This. Some of the pharma companies like to portray it as unfair, but it's mostly free market in action. NICE compares cost and benefits of available treatments and decides whether to fund or not. If not funded, pharma companies can reduce price to reach the magic cost benefit point (or not, their choice).

While Merck may be trying to use relocation as a lever on drug prices, I don't see it. We could pay more and they'd still locate wherever looked best for business/if we were best for business then they'd locate here whatever we pay for drugs.

I don't that's quite right.

For one thing the financial basis for QALY hasn't been upgraded for inflation, so it's steadily getting harder to justify new drugs.
For another no calculation is made for the benefits the pharma industry brings to our economy. Losing a large slice of that would be very costly indeed to the exchequer.
The increase in the rebate to government is also treated as a cost free benefit to the books. Again, it's not if it helps drive away the pharma industry.

Investment in pharmaceuticals is done on a decades long basis, as it takes decades to take basic research all the way into medicines for patients.

This is the same as the UK versus Norway in terms of oil exploration investment.
Norway has a tax regime which brings them a huge amount of money - and it's been stable for decades.
We chop and change at least once, often several times, every new administration.
As @Richard_Tyndall often reminds us, that has throttled our oil and gas industry.

With pharmaceuticals, there isn't even the environmental downside.

Take a look at the international league tables for pharma investment and research. From a position of great global competitiveness, we have steadily slid down the rankings.