Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guido says the Tories are bracing themselves for charges over

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Sandpit said:

    Patrick said:

    Dromedary said:

    It does make you wonder how long TM will put up with Boris

    May is only stopgap herself. I'll be very surprised if she's in office in a year's time. This is the most incompetent cabinet since the 1950s. But Johnson could fall within a day or two. There's a rule in Britain: do NOT upset the Saudi headchoppers. And if you happen to, then GROVEL. We're talking some of the world's most lucrative weapons contracts here. Whatever bollocks politicians spew to the media is secondary to that and must not conflict with it.

    The rule applies to the foreign service, the rest of Whitehall, the BBC, the rest of the media, the judiciary.
    We're merely aping the American pandering to Saudi despots. I very very strongly suspect that Trump will not bow (literally) to the king of Saudi Arabia as Obama did. I'm pretty certain that they're going to get the hairdryer treatment. And not before bloody time. And tout de suite our own attitude to middle eastern despots is likely to fall in line. Boris may have merely jumped the gun.
    I imagine the US attitude to the Saudis will probably change somewhat, as soon as the former becomes self-sufficient in fuel.
    That's already happened, at least if you take the continent as a whole.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,914
    Patrick said:

    Sandpit said:

    Patrick said:

    Dromedary said:

    It does make you wonder how long TM will put up with Boris

    May is only stopgap herself. I'll be very surprised if she's in office in a year's time. This is the most incompetent cabinet since the 1950s. But Johnson could fall within a day or two. There's a rule in Britain: do NOT upset the Saudi headchoppers. And if you happen to, then GROVEL. We're talking some of the world's most lucrative weapons contracts here. Whatever bollocks politicians spew to the media is secondary to that and must not conflict with it.

    The rule applies to the foreign service, the rest of Whitehall, the BBC, the rest of the media, the judiciary.
    We're merely aping the American pandering to Saudi despots. I very very strongly suspect that Trump will not bow (literally) to the king of Saudi Arabia as Obama did. I'm pretty certain that they're going to get the hairdryer treatment. And not before bloody time. And tout de suite our own attitude to middle eastern despots is likely to fall in line. Boris may have merely jumped the gun.
    I imagine the US attitude to the Saudis will probably change somewhat, as soon as the former becomes self-sufficient in fuel.
    Indeed. And Trump is the first POTUS since forever who is completely beholden to no-one. Witness his beasting of Boeing and their fleecing of the taxpayer on Airforce One. I suspect the lobbying business is in for a few very thin years.
    Yep. This is where he's starting with the swamp-draining, the huge cozy relationship between government and business which costs taxpayers hundreds of billions a year.

    As others have said, his background is as a CEO and he's approaching the new job in exactly the same way a new CEO seeks to make his mark - with a few very visible quick wins. Watch for the infrastructure projects in the rust belt states to start generating working men's jobs before the summer.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Patrick said:

    Dromedary said:

    It does make you wonder how long TM will put up with Boris

    May is only stopgap herself. I'll be very surprised if she's in office in a year's time. This is the most incompetent cabinet since the 1950s. But Johnson could fall within a day or two. There's a rule in Britain: do NOT upset the Saudi headchoppers. And if you happen to, then GROVEL. We're talking some of the world's most lucrative weapons contracts here. Whatever bollocks politicians spew to the media is secondary to that and must not conflict with it.

    The rule applies to the foreign service, the rest of Whitehall, the BBC, the rest of the media, the judiciary.
    We're merely aping the American pandering to Saudi despots. I very very strongly suspect that Trump will not bow (literally) to the king of Saudi Arabia as Obama did. I'm pretty certain that they're going to get the hairdryer treatment. And not before bloody time. And tout de suite our own attitude to middle eastern despots is likely to fall in line. Boris may have merely jumped the gun.
    I imagine the US attitude to the Saudis will probably change somewhat, as soon as the former becomes self-sufficient in fuel.
    About time, the Saudis should be international pariah number one. They've done more damage to the world and given less rights to their citizens than either the Iranians or Apartheid South Africa.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,914
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Bill Hill still have 1/8 on the Tories in Sleaford, which given the lack of any news today is probably a dead cert now.

    Cheers - not sure I want to risk toooo much on a by election though.

    Lay draw in cricket still btw.
    Yes, missed most of it this morning but 2.5ish for each side suggests a fine balance ahead of England's batting collapse in the morning. Draw laid at 5.5.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,935
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Bill Hill still have 1/8 on the Tories in Sleaford, which given the lack of any news today is probably a dead cert now.

    Cheers - not sure I want to risk toooo much on a by election though.

    Lay draw in cricket still btw.
    Yes, missed most of it this morning but 2.5ish for each side suggests a fine balance ahead of England's batting collapse in the morning. Draw laid at 5.5.
    Cricviz has the draw at 9% with India 51.8%.
  • Options
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited December 2016
    The only reason the NHS runs a "waiting list" system is to line medics' pockets. It's not a natural thing like a mountain or a sea. They could quite easily arrange an appointment for you at the same time it's decided that you need one. That's what car garages do.

    As for medics, they have only one hierarchy. When a medic wearing an NHS hat says he can "see you privately", that is the corrupt abuse of state resources. If one of them got a jail sentence, the others might be less keen on continuing their ways. When he says he can "see you privately" to "refer you back into the NHS" quicker than you'd be referred otherwise, that kind of behaviour is called taking a bribe in almost every other country on earth. The only reason it's not called that in Britain is social deference.

    As for British dentists, they're used as a textbook example when explaining the usage of the phrase "gaming the system". Who seriously respects such money-grabbing lying turds? Answer: everyone who doesn't realise that's what they are, plus those who are like it themselves.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,914
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Bill Hill still have 1/8 on the Tories in Sleaford, which given the lack of any news today is probably a dead cert now.

    Cheers - not sure I want to risk toooo much on a by election though.

    Lay draw in cricket still btw.
    Yes, missed most of it this morning but 2.5ish for each side suggests a fine balance ahead of England's batting collapse in the morning. Draw laid at 5.5.
    Cricviz has the draw at 9% with India 51.8%.
    Sounds about right. I'll wait to bet on England until after the hosts get a couple of quick wickets first thing in the morning ;)
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Patrick said:

    Sandpit said:


    I imagine the US attitude to the Saudis will probably change somewhat, as soon as the former becomes self-sufficient in fuel.

    Indeed. And Trump is the first POTUS since forever who is completely beholden to no-one. Witness his beasting of Boeing and their fleecing of the taxpayer on Airforce One. I suspect the lobbying business is in for a few very thin years.
    What about all his foreign creditors?

  • Options
    Rolling Stones frontman Sir Mick Jagger has become a father again at age of 73
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,092
    When is the Sleaford declaration expected?
  • Options
    Mr. Urquhart, must say I find that a weird expression. He didn't stop being a father, after all...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,092

    Mr. Urquhart, must say I find that a weird expression.

    That could be a polite way of calling the baby ugly.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,014
    Dromedary said:

    Charles said:

    And please remember drug spending is about 11% of health spending.

    There's a lot of other expenditure that goes directly into the pockets of big business, such as on medical equipment and information technology scams.

    Last I heard, it was Bayer who produced the book that tells GPs how to run their "surgeries". Big business is everywhere in the health service.

    IIRC, when Margaret Cook walked out on her husband Robin Cook she called for the pharmaceutical sector to be nationalised. She was absolutely right.

    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.
    I’m intellectually inclined to agree with you about nationalisation, but experience of what happened in the 50’s and 60’s in the Soviet Union, where R&D was nationalised, and the West, where it wasn’t, makes me pause.
    For a long time!
  • Options
    I don't know if anyone's bet on Betfair's "Article 50 - Parliamentary Vote Result" market (https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.128049345) but I reckon there's a decent case that it should be settled already!

    For this market to be settled, the United Kingdom must hold a Parliamentary Vote on whether to trigger Article 50 during the lifetime of the current UK Government
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,014
    Dromedary said:

    The only reason the NHS runs a "waiting list" system is to line medics' pockets. It's not a natural thing like a mountain or a sea. They could quite easily arrange an appointment for you at the same time it's decided that you need one. That's what car garages do.

    As for medics, they have only one hierarchy. When a medic wearing an NHS hat says he can "see you privately", that is the corrupt abuse of state resources. If one of them got a jail sentence, the others might be less keen on continuing their ways. When he says he can "see you privately" to "refer you back into the NHS" quicker than you'd be referred otherwise, that kind of behaviour is called taking a bribe in almost every other country on earth. The only reason it's not called that in Britain is social deference.

    As for British dentists, they're used as a textbook example when explaining the usage of the phrase "gaming the system". Who seriously respects such money-grabbing lying turds? Answer: everyone who doesn't realise that's what they are, plus those who are like it themselves.

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
  • Options
    MrsBMrsB Posts: 574

    stodge said:

    I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.

    That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.

    But that is a donation, right, and should have been declared as such at full market cost?
    correct. Notional expenditure. Money doesn't change hands but the value counts against the limit.
  • Options
    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    Should point out any think those figures include production costs...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
  • Options

    Dromedary said:

    The only reason the NHS runs a "waiting list" system is to line medics' pockets. It's not a natural thing like a mountain or a sea. They could quite easily arrange an appointment for you at the same time it's decided that you need one. That's what car garages do.

    As for medics, they have only one hierarchy. When a medic wearing an NHS hat says he can "see you privately", that is the corrupt abuse of state resources. If one of them got a jail sentence, the others might be less keen on continuing their ways. When he says he can "see you privately" to "refer you back into the NHS" quicker than you'd be referred otherwise, that kind of behaviour is called taking a bribe in almost every other country on earth. The only reason it's not called that in Britain is social deference.

    As for British dentists, they're used as a textbook example when explaining the usage of the phrase "gaming the system". Who seriously respects such money-grabbing lying turds? Answer: everyone who doesn't realise that's what they are, plus those who are like it themselves.

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.
    If you have zero cost on something then demand is effectively infinite. Demand will always exceed supply so instead of rationing with cost (to the patient in money) we ration with cost (to the patient in time and inconvenience).
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024
    Dromedary said:

    Charles said:

    And please remember drug spending is about 11% of health spending.

    There's a lot of other expenditure that goes directly into the pockets of big business, such as on medical equipment and information technology scams.

    Last I heard, it was Bayer who produced the book that tells GPs how to run their "surgeries". Big business is everywhere in the health service.

    IIRC, when Margaret Cook walked out on her husband Robin Cook she called for the pharmaceutical sector to be nationalised. She was absolutely right.

    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.
    Staff costs must be 75% of the total bill, though.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,092
    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    85-1 on Betfair. I suspect they'll get a strong second place at least.
  • Options
    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    Did they give a prediction?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024
    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024

    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    85-1 on Betfair. I suspect they'll get a strong second place at least.
    Hyufd is certain ukip will be second.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    Companies like Johnson & Johnson are more consumer products businesses than pharmaceuticals ones.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
    Matter of opinion... But yes I agree with you.
    It makes sense if you think about it... As a CEO you could invest more in research and your successors successor will thank you... Or yiu could invest in marketing and increase sales today!
  • Options
    Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
    I get the impression that in Dromedary's mind it is.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,092
    rcs1000 said:

    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    85-1 on Betfair. I suspect they'll get a strong second place at least.
    Hyufd is certain ukip will be second.
    The LDs got hammered there in 2015 because of the coalition and went from second to nowhere. I think the baseline going into the by-election should be closer to the 2010 result. UKIP have an awful candidate but if they somehow do well it could enable the LDs to come through the middle.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
    I was being more polite than you!

    (As it turns out his link says that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D which falls into the "yes, and?" category of information)
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    85-1 on Betfair. I suspect they'll get a strong second place at least.
    Hyufd is certain ukip will be second.
    Yes, but that's not a surprise, is it?
    Personally I think this election is difficult to call (as regards the losing parties).
  • Options

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.

    It's free, so demand exceeds supply.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
    Matter of opinion... But yes I agree with you.
    It makes sense if you think about it... As a CEO you could invest more in research and your successors successor will thank you... Or yiu could invest in marketing and increase sales today!
    If you gut R&D your multiple goes down and your stock options don't pay off...
  • Options
    Sorry I have no reliable predictions on the outcome at Sleaford except to say the LDs are in good spirits and putting up a reasonable effort there. I believe they will be disappointed if they do not exceed 10%
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
    I was being more polite than you!

    (As it turns out his link says that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D which falls into the "yes, and?" category of information)
    Also, Johnson& Johnson sells more consumer products (baby care and teeth stuff) than it does pharmaceuticals. So, no surprise it spends more on marketing.
  • Options
    Welcome back, Mr. Goupillon.

    [Unless I'm misremembering, in which case, welcome to PB].
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
    Matter of opinion... But yes I agree with you.
    It makes sense if you think about it... As a CEO you could invest more in research and your successors successor will thank you... Or yiu could invest in marketing and increase sales today!
    If you gut R&D your multiple goes down and your stock options don't pay off...
    chortle

    or you could just follow the tried and tested route of british management and gut R&D, big yourself up and sell yourself to an overseas multinat while pocketing a huge success fee.

    Beats actually working
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,935

    I don't know if anyone's bet on Betfair's "Article 50 - Parliamentary Vote Result" market (https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.128049345) but I reckon there's a decent case that it should be settled already!

    For this market to be settled, the United Kingdom must hold a Parliamentary Vote on whether to trigger Article 50 during the lifetime of the current UK Government

    No doubt they'll find many sources to reach a consensus on what this actually means.

    It will be settled according to the consensus.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,914
    Goupillon said:

    Sorry I have no reliable predictions on the outcome at Sleaford except to say the LDs are in good spirits and putting up a reasonable effort there. I believe they will be disappointed if they do not exceed 10%

    So it's going to be a Tory rout. 1/8 good value on that prediction.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
    I was being more polite than you!

    (As it turns out his link says that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D which falls into the "yes, and?" category of information)
    Also, Johnson& Johnson sells more consumer products (baby care and teeth stuff) than it does pharmaceuticals. So, no surprise it spends more on marketing.
    repeating it doesn't make it right (I'm assuming you are talking about value, not units).

    Q3 2016 sales in consumer $3.3bn. Q3 sales in pharma $8.4bn. Q3 sales in med devices $6.2bn

  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
    Matter of opinion... But yes I agree with you.
    It makes sense if you think about it... As a CEO you could invest more in research and your successors successor will thank you... Or yiu could invest in marketing and increase sales today!
    If you gut R&D your multiple goes down and your stock options don't pay off...
    chortle

    or you could just follow the tried and tested route of british management and gut R&D, big yourself up and sell yourself to an overseas multinat while pocketing a huge success fee.

    Beats actually working
    shhh!
  • Options
    MrsBMrsB Posts: 574
    MrsB said:

    stodge said:

    I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.

    That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.

    But that is a donation, right, and should have been declared as such at full market cost?
    correct. Notional expenditure. Money doesn't change hands but the value counts against the limit.
    and just to be absolutely clear, it's because the printer does printing for a living. Fine to print your own leaflets and just account for the cost of the paper and toner (and a bit for office space etc)
  • Options

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/?utm_term=.e38e4107ab1a
    "Marketing" is NOT the same as "influence and bribes"
    Matter of opinion... But yes I agree with you.
    It makes sense if you think about it... As a CEO you could invest more in research and your successors successor will thank you... Or yiu could invest in marketing and increase sales today!
    If you gut R&D your multiple goes down and your stock options don't pay off...
    chortle

    or you could just follow the tried and tested route of british management and gut R&D, big yourself up and sell yourself to an overseas multinat while pocketing a huge success fee.

    Beats actually working

    My brother form another mother :-)

    You are spot on!

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,935

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.

    It's free, so demand exceeds supply.
    At least we don't have the staggering amount of health product commercials on TV that the US does though !

    "For back ache ask your Doctor about xxxxx. Side effects include diarrhoea, drowsiness, mucscle pain, vomiting, death...(I abbreviate, severely)"
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,014

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.

    It's free, so demand exceeds supply.
    AFAIR there is little or no effort made to establsih what would be a reasonable expenditure in any area of the NHS. There is a sort of Procrustean effort to lop off the legs or arms of the patient who doesn’t fit the bed!
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited December 2016
    Just a joke...just a joke...

    Primal Scream's Bobby Gillespie has never been one to mince his words and the Scotsman brought an ounce of controversy to Bristol when his band rocked the O2 Academy.

    As the star of the iconic alternative rock band filled a little time during a technical issue, he said, 'I'm no comedian but should I tell a joke?'.

    Before saying to the room 'What do you call a Conservative MP that's been stabbed to death? A beautiful f**king thing'.

    http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/what-do-you-call-a-tory-mp-stabbed-to-death-a-beautiful-f-king-thing-jokes-primal-scream-singer/story-29967568-detail/story.html
  • Options
    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited December 2016

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.

    Are there such things? ;-) Aren't they a bit like Santa and the tooth fairy?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.

    Are there such things? ;-)
    I thought Chinese patent applications were just about putting your information into a single file that could be easily distributed to your local competitors?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,651

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.

    Are you sure you weren't flying out of Durham Tees Valley after a trip to Middlesbrough?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,914

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.

    Are there such things? ;-) Aren't they a bit like Santa and the tooth fairy?
    And if there were, would they be worth the paper they're written on?
  • Options
    Mr. Observer, long time ago now, but I went there and the decline in air quality (though not visible) was noticeable immediately. Not surprised it's more built up, but a shade surprised they aren't doing more about it.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.

    Are there such things? ;-) Aren't they a bit like Santa and the tooth fairy?
    And if there were, would they be worth the paper they're written on?
    Depends how much important members of the party have been paid.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
    I was being more polite than you!

    (As it turns out his link says that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D which falls into the "yes, and?" category of information)
    Also, Johnson& Johnson sells more consumer products (baby care and teeth stuff) than it does pharmaceuticals. So, no surprise it spends more on marketing.
    repeating it doesn't make it right (I'm assuming you are talking about value, not units).

    Q3 2016 sales in consumer $3.3bn. Q3 sales in pharma $8.4bn. Q3 sales in med devices $6.2bn

    Oops.

    I was reading http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/JNJ/3390604950x0x911937/CDD15D3E-E71A-438B-A3A1-942EA0A848B8/Sales_of_Key_Products_Franchises_3Q2016.pdf and I didn't read onto the second page :)
  • Options
  • Options
    I have lived and worked in China and the Philippines. I can state categorically that their air quality is orders of magnitude worse than ours. A really really bad day in London would be a wonderful respite in Beijing or Shanghai or Manila.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
    I was being more polite than you!

    (As it turns out his link says that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D which falls into the "yes, and?" category of information)
    Also, Johnson& Johnson sells more consumer products (baby care and teeth stuff) than it does pharmaceuticals. So, no surprise it spends more on marketing.
    repeating it doesn't make it right (I'm assuming you are talking about value, not units).

    Q3 2016 sales in consumer $3.3bn. Q3 sales in pharma $8.4bn. Q3 sales in med devices $6.2bn

    Oops.

    I was reading http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/JNJ/3390604950x0x911937/CDD15D3E-E71A-438B-A3A1-942EA0A848B8/Sales_of_Key_Products_Franchises_3Q2016.pdf and I didn't read onto the second page :)
    How much money did you say you managed...?

    :wink:
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Full marks to that lawyer for ingenuity!
  • Options
    Patrick said:

    I have lived and worked in China and the Philippines. I can state categorically that their air quality is orders of magnitude worse than ours. A really really bad day in London would be a wonderful respite in Beijing or Shanghai or Manila.

    Without doubt.

    The worst I have ever experienced was in Delhi. It actually came into the hotel I was staying at so that you could not see clearly to the other end of the lobby.

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,308

    Mr. Observer, long time ago now, but I went there and the decline in air quality (though not visible) was noticeable immediately. Not surprised it's more built up, but a shade surprised they aren't doing more about it.

    You must be a major pollutant to have had such a dramatic and rapid effect on the place?
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050
    Pulpstar said:

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.

    It's free, so demand exceeds supply.
    At least we don't have the staggering amount of health product commercials on TV that the US does though !

    "For back ache ask your Doctor about xxxxx. Side effects include diarrhoea, drowsiness, mucscle pain, vomiting, death...(I abbreviate, severely)"
    Tell me about it....I've just come back.
    Compared to most other advanced economies, the UK devotes a significantly lower portion of GDP into health spending. We need to put a shed load more money in.

    BTW...I've just checked my betfair account for the first time since that horrible night expecting the worse......a major four figure loss. I'm really surprised that turnout on POTUS tipped 58%...a very welcome offset.

    And, I have to thank you Pulps personally for tipping me onto Michigan. My loss for the night was only 250 which is unbelievable considering how exposed I was to Hillary at one point.

    That said, I would take a four figure loss in a heartbeat if it changed the outcome.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,024
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Dromedary said:



    Big Pharma spends far more on influence and bribes than it does on research, development and production combined.

    Link?
    There's no link, because it's clearly a made up statistic.
    I was being more polite than you!

    (As it turns out his link says that they spend more on sales & marketing than R&D which falls into the "yes, and?" category of information)
    Also, Johnson& Johnson sells more consumer products (baby care and teeth stuff) than it does pharmaceuticals. So, no surprise it spends more on marketing.
    repeating it doesn't make it right (I'm assuming you are talking about value, not units).

    Q3 2016 sales in consumer $3.3bn. Q3 sales in pharma $8.4bn. Q3 sales in med devices $6.2bn

    Oops.

    I was reading http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/JNJ/3390604950x0x911937/CDD15D3E-E71A-438B-A3A1-942EA0A848B8/Sales_of_Key_Products_Franchises_3Q2016.pdf and I didn't read onto the second page :)
    How much money did you say you managed...?

    :wink:
    Pharma's not really my space :lol:
  • Options

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.

    Are there such things? ;-) Aren't they a bit like Santa and the tooth fairy?

    There are. Over one million patent applications were filed in China last year. The courts are very pro-patentee.

  • Options
    Charles said:

    Full marks to that lawyer for ingenuity!
    Really a jurisdictional question. Clearly in Louisiana, if an embryo has legal standing, then this sort of case makes sense. But of course the embryos are in California.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    85-1 on Betfair. I suspect they'll get a strong second place at least.
    Hyufd is certain ukip will be second.
    Victoria Ayling would then be an ornament of the mother of parliaments, joining the 102 strong cohort of kipper MPs.

  • Options
    Mr. B2, you rapscallion! Like all morris dancers, I have a fragrant aroma.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,308
    edited December 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    Goupillon said:

    A report from a LD source at "sleepy Sleaford"

    "There is no negativity on the streets. I have never known such silence and complacency during a parliamentary by-election from other parties. Labour are trying but have no rural reach. UKIP are noisy but unfocused. The Tories are spending, but are rattled and don't know what is going on."

    85-1 on Betfair. I suspect they'll get a strong second place at least.
    Hyufd is certain ukip will be second.
    He ought to lay some money against the LibDems (winner w/o Cons) on Betfair, then - it is about time somebody did. Right now it is £zero.
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Patrick said:

    I have lived and worked in China and the Philippines. I can state categorically that their air quality is orders of magnitude worse than ours. A really really bad day in London would be a wonderful respite in Beijing or Shanghai or Manila.

    Work in a better part of the Philippines, the air and the water where I am is crystal clear - except for the hammering rain for several hours a day at the moment!
  • Options
    Dr. Foxinsox, play fair, that prediction was very wrong, but how many (early on) predicted the referendum result? For months I was convinced 60% Remain was the most probable outcome.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Full marks to that lawyer for ingenuity!
    Really a jurisdictional question. Clearly in Louisiana, if an embryo has legal standing, then this sort of case makes sense. But of course the embryos are in California.
    Sure, but they have just created a new trust in a pro-embyro state to create a future inheritance and hence infringed rights. It's entirely specious but certainly creative.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Flew back from Shanghai yesterday. For the first two hours of the journey there was a pall of smog hanging in the sky up to about 6,000 feet. The pollution in Shanghai itself was unbelievable. It stings your face, furs your tongue and clogs your throat.

    Someone somewhere is going to make a fortune out of cleantech. As long as they remember to take out Chinese patents.


    Southam...you were quoted the other day on the Guardian website for something or other. I cannot remember what you were quoted for and on what article...but well done anyway.
  • Options
    New thread.
  • Options

    The reason for NHS waiting llists is money. The NHS is underfunded, so demand exceeds supply.

    It's free, so demand exceeds supply.
    Mrs Thatcher was right: we should ban economists.

    You might be right. It should be easy to test -- is the number of doctors' appointments higher in Britain than (say) France ?

    Seriously, someone must have done the research. Ah, Dr Google finds this international comparison. We are higher than America but lower than France, Germany or Australia.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/236589/number-of-doctor-visits-per-capita-by-country/
This discussion has been closed.