Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.
Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.
May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.
The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.
But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.
Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.
Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.
I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.
Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.
Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.
May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.
The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.
But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.
Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.
Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.
I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.
Council property to which the council tax payers of Westminster are denied access.
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure. As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)
I don't denigrate any of the efforts here - indeed given the cost and relatively low chances of success, the persistence of some companies in funding research has been heroic - and every failure provides more data, but similar optimism has been expressed over the last decade or more, only to be crushed.
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
I particularly liked the final paragraph reminding Trump et al that 'document preservation' and presumably, during any trial, discovery & disclosure, cuts both ways!
I think you're giving a little too much credit to the Telegraph. Rather more liberal publications (Slate, for example) have already expressed serious reservations. That a Telegraph opinion writer should publish a disobliging piece is rather less surprising, and of little consequence - after all, it's Democrats who will decide the fate of her would be candidacy.
(FWIW, I think her encouragement of crank opinions on for example vaccines ought to be disqualificatory.)
China not hugely enthusiastic about The Last Jedi: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001531/chinas-die-hard-star-wars-fans-respond-to-last-jedi-flop The most upvoted review complains that “the whole film really insults the IQ of its audience,” and demands to know how the universe could possibly be ruled by such an incompetent Galactic Empire. “In Star Wars, it seems only Darth Vader had a brain — it’s such a shame he’s already dead,” the reviewer concludes.
I think you're giving a little too much credit to the Telegraph. Rather more liberal publications (Slate, for example) have already expressed serious reservations. That a Telegraph opinion writer should publish a disobliging piece is rather less surprising, and of little consequence - after all, it's Democrats who will decide the fate of her would be candidacy.
(FWIW, I think her encouragement of crank opinions on for example vaccines ought to be disqualificatory.)
Absolutely, she has never really had her views on anything properly examined, she will have had commercial endorsements ‘helping’ form her views on a lot of subjects (as these things are not as regulated in the US as they are in the U.K.), and will undoubtedly have made a fair number of enemies on her way to the very top of a very greasy pole.
Lay at 10/1. Probably lay at 25/1 on the savings account principle.
I think you're giving a little too much credit to the Telegraph. Rather more liberal publications (Slate, for example) have already expressed serious reservations. That a Telegraph opinion writer should publish a disobliging piece is rather less surprising, and of little consequence - after all, it's Democrats who will decide the fate of her would be candidacy.
(FWIW, I think her encouragement of crank opinions on for example vaccines ought to be disqualificatory.)
Absolutely, she has never really had her views on anything properly examined, she will have had commercial endorsements ‘helping’ form her views on a lot of subjects (as these things are not as regulated in the US as they are in the U.K.), and will undoubtedly have made a fair number of enemies on her way to the very top of a very greasy pole.
Lay at 10/1. Probably lay at 25/1 on the savings account principle.
I'm happy to close out trading bets, but I'd be slightly hesitant to actively bet against her candidacy just yet. She's a celebrity with a lot of money, and far more popular than Trump. Betting on the rationality of the US electorate has not always been the best strategy...
China not hugely enthusiastic about The Last Jedi: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001531/chinas-die-hard-star-wars-fans-respond-to-last-jedi-flop The most upvoted review complains that “the whole film really insults the IQ of its audience,” and demands to know how the universe could possibly be ruled by such an incompetent Galactic Empire. “In Star Wars, it seems only Darth Vader had a brain — it’s such a shame he’s already dead,” the reviewer concludes.
That's hilarious. I hope the Daily Mash make something of that.
No. They were UK politicians including Farage, Adonis etc. Worth listening to the whole podcast or if you are short of time the polling data is towards the end.
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure. As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)
I don't denigrate any of the efforts here - indeed given the cost and relatively low chances of success, the persistence of some companies in funding research has been heroic - and every failure provides more data, but similar optimism has been expressed over the last decade or more, only to be crushed.
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data - obviously only trends and correlations - from other trials and it looks exciting
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure. As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data - obviously only trends and correlations - from other trials and it looks exciting
Emphasises the difficulty of medico-pharmacaceutical research. Far too easy to get misleading data from early trials.
I suspect, only suspect, because I’m well out of touch now, that we might get somewhere on Alzheimers fairly soon, but it’ll be around the prevention, or prevention of further deterioration. We’re a long way from reversal.
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure. As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data - obviously only trends and correlations - from other trials and it looks exciting
Emphasises the difficulty of medico-pharmacaceutical research. Far too easy to get misleading data from early trials.
I suspect, only suspect, because I’m well out of touch now, that we might get somewhere on Alzheimers fairly soon, but it’ll be around the prevention, or prevention of further deterioration. We’re a long way from reversal.
Totally agree - that’s why I think it’s a vaccine first. I suspect reversal won’t be possible and we’ll be left with symptomatic treatments.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
I don’t think the electorate much cares about trade deals. But in any case - it will probably be decades before we have more trade deals than the EU.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
I don’t think the electorate much cares about trade deals. But in any case - it will probably be decades before we have more trade deals than the EU.
It could be a long time before we have any trade deals worth speaking of, other than the exit compromise with the EU if we get one.
What kind of world is it in which right-wing columnists appointed to quangos by their political mates cannot join white supremacists and anti-Semites at events focused on killing off the socially inferior? It's political correctness gone mad.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
I don’t think the electorate much cares about trade deals. But in any case - it will probably be decades before we have more trade deals than the EU.
It could be a long time before we have any trade deals worth speaking of, other than the exit compromise with the EU if we get one.
My guess is that we will end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU does in future, with some UK-specific terms that do not have an impact on our relationship with the single market. It will be a part of our symbolic but not real life departure.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
I'm reasonably well aware of current research (Novartis, for example has a vaccine in PII), and there is great science being done, but I think you are underestimating both the time to develop these therapies, and the likelihood of failure. As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)
I don't denigrate any of the efforts here - indeed given the cost and relatively low chances of success, the persistence of some companies in funding research has been heroic - and every failure provides more data, but similar optimism has been expressed over the last decade or more, only to be crushed.
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data...
If that's the case it's odd, not to say unethical for them to be recruiting for a couple of trials with thousands of patients for the next half decade... https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565511
And wouldn't the latter be unpublished, price sensitive information ?
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Why should they? Most people allowed the numpty Leavers to rant for many years, before they were able to put their "facts" before the UK electorate, and for whatever reason, won the referendum. The consensus now is that we will leave the EU. The how, why and when is under discussion, but why the hell should people not be allowed to have a different opinion and voice, or is that only the right of the Pure BeLeavers who dislike the problems and inconsistencies of their arguments being pointed out to them? This country is a democracy of sorts with reasonable freedom of speech and thought, not some alternative that a few would like it to be...
Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.
Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.
May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.
The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.
But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.
Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.
Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.
I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.
Council property to which the council tax payers of Westminster are denied access.
Are council tax payers usually able to access anywhere so long as their council owns it? I wouldn't have thought so, even if a restricted pavement would be unusual.
Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.
Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.
May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.
The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.
But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.
Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.
Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.
I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.
Council property to which the council tax payers of Westminster are denied access.
They key question here will be who employs the photographer.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
Australia and NZ are just not big enough to act as any kind of barrier to rejoining the EU. Given the deal we are likely to end up with - which will essentially be leaving in name only in terms of our current relationship, but a red line with regards to any further political integration - I doubt there will be a huge push for us to rejoin.
Gove confronted on Good Morning Britain about Ann Widdecombe's allegation on Celebrity Big Brother that he stabbed Boris Johnson 'in the front and back'
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
That depends on whether our economy is bigger than the country we are negotiating with and whether they export more to us than we do to them
China not hugely enthusiastic about The Last Jedi: http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001531/chinas-die-hard-star-wars-fans-respond-to-last-jedi-flop The most upvoted review complains that “the whole film really insults the IQ of its audience,” and demands to know how the universe could possibly be ruled by such an incompetent Galactic Empire. “In Star Wars, it seems only Darth Vader had a brain — it’s such a shame he’s already dead,” the reviewer concludes.
That's hilarious. I hope the Daily Mash make something of that.
And yet, they lap up such cerebal masterpieces like 'Transformers: The Last Knight'
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Why should they? Most people allowed the numpty Leavers to rant for many years, before they were able to put their "facts" before the UK electorate, and for whatever reason, won the referendum. The consensus now is that we will leave the EU. The how, why and when is under discussion, but why the hell should people not be allowed to have a different opinion and voice, or is that only the right of the Pure BeLeavers who dislike the problems and inconsistencies of their arguments being pointed out to them? This country is a democracy of sorts with reasonable freedom of speech and thought, not some alternative that a few would like it to be...
Quite so. Note the ludicrous response when I (and others) suggest that this obsession with the nativist brexiteers and neobrexiteers with ending free movement is wrecking the chance of a decent deal. That's a perfectly reasonable argument, whether one favours FOM or not, and yet such ideas are treated as heresy. The self-branded democrats of the brexit right are notably undemocratic in their behaviour!
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
That depends on whether our economy is bigger than the country we are negotiating with and whether they export more to us than we do to them
Yep - if we are going to focus on seeking trade deals that will make very little difference to anything at all, we could get some with countries on relatively decent terms.
Mr. HYUFD, that's actually a pretty good result for May given Corbyn can appear to face both ways whereas she has to actually try to thread the needle.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.
What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what we have at the moment and that will deliver greater standards of living than we have at the moment? We are going to have to do a huge number of trade deals to get even remotely close to what we will give up by leaving the single market. That, of course, is why when push comes to shove we will be leaving in name only.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
You forget to mention that Boris's score is down there with the other political has-beens.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
And by the same token a great opportunity for Labour if they can find a better leader.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
That depends on whether our economy is bigger than the country we are negotiating with and whether they export more to us than we do to them
Yep - if we are going to focus on seeking trade deals that will make very little difference to anything at all, we could get some with countries on relatively decent terms.
Of course China exports more to us than we do to them and we are a bigger economy than Switzerland and export only a little more to them than they do to us
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
Yep, although things are 'bad' at the moment for the tories. They at least have more opportunity for change. The Corbyn movement is locked into it's current path with JC/JD.
It'll take some changes for the tories. They need new blood, and new bold ideas. But things like the manifesto and the leader couldn't be as bad as the last GE.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
And by the same token a great opportunity for Labour if they can find a better leader.
At the moment the only way that Corbyn isn't leader at the next GE is his health. That's not likely for May.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.
What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what we have at the moment and that will deliver greater standards of living than we have at the moment? We are going to have to do a huge number of trade deals to get even remotely close to what we will give up by leaving the single market. That, of course, is why when push comes to shove we will be leaving in name only.
The customs union you mean, Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union in EFTA
FPT, I think Charles was being remarkably optimistic about effective Alzheimer's treatments being available within a decade. The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO. I'd probably double that.
Bapi was old news. People know why it - and sola - failed. Adamenuzamab (which I can never spell!) is good as far as it goes (that’s BIIB’s product). But there is serious work ongoing - just look at companies like Denali or UNS or others - and the science looks really good.
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
NVS doesn’t think their product will work. Of course likelihood is low - but I’ve looked at some of the blinded data - obviously only trends and correlations - from other trials and it looks exciting
Emphasises the difficulty of medico-pharmacaceutical research. Far too easy to get misleading data from early trials.
I suspect, only suspect, because I’m well out of touch now, that we might get somewhere on Alzheimers fairly soon, but it’ll be around the prevention, or prevention of further deterioration. We’re a long way from reversal.
Totally agree - that’s why I think it’s a vaccine first. I suspect reversal won’t be possible and we’ll be left with symptomatic treatments.
Some of the data from DIAN is just incredible
Thanks for the heads-up on DIAN. I’m a little surprised at your thoughts on a vaccine but you’re much more in touch that I am.
Mr. HYUFD, that's actually a pretty good result for May given Corbyn can appear to face both ways whereas she has to actually try to thread the needle.
Yes, he is still her get out of jail card despite her problems
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.
What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what we have at the moment and that will deliver greater standards of living than we have at the moment? We are going to have to do a huge number of trade deals to get even remotely close to what we will give up by leaving the single market. That, of course, is why when push comes to shove we will be leaving in name only.
The customs union you mean, Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union in EFTA
No, I mean the single market. Leaving the customs union is just the icing on the cake.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
You forget to mention that Boris's score is down there with the other political has-beens.
Last Survation comparing Boris to May had Boris getting a higher Tory voteshare than May but a higher Labour voteshare
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
And by the same token a great opportunity for Labour if they can find a better leader.
Except the general election result ensures they won't, Labour members overwhelmingly want Corbyn to fight the next general election while Tory members do not want May to fight the next general election
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Looks like Carney is the best front for Remainia and Blair and Clegg should stay as far away from it as possible. May and Corbyn equally unpopular which gives some hope for the Tories if they can find a new leader at the next general election with more appeal, otherwise we are looking at another hung parliament
Yep, although things are 'bad' at the moment for the tories. They at least have more opportunity for change. The Corbyn movement is locked into it's current path with JC/JD.
It'll take some changes for the tories. They need new blood, and new bold ideas. But things like the manifesto and the leader couldn't be as bad as the last GE.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
That depends on whether our economy is bigger than the country we are negotiating with and whether they export more to us than we do to them
Yep - if we are going to focus on seeking trade deals that will make very little difference to anything at all, we could get some with countries on relatively decent terms.
Of course China exports more to us than we do to them and we are a bigger economy than Switzerland and export only a little more to them than they do to us
Yep, so China is doing fine with us at the moment. And under WTO rules we cannot change the tariffs its companies currently pay - unless we change them for everyone. We are about to become a market of 65 million, as opposed to being part of one of 450 million - and every country in the world outside the EU - our biggest export market - will continue to have exactly the same access as they have now. In order to secure trade deals, we have to offer better access than that.
Interesting podcast - the net trust in BREXIT are quite striking:
May -6 Corbyn -6 Blair -42 Clegg -24 (the next worst) Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
Carney is presumably positive because enough Leavers haven’t heard of him. Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Watching Blair, Clegg and Osborne fronting a rejoin campaign would be the biggest gift possible to the stay out campaign.
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Any trade deals we get will be dictated from the other side of the table. But, as per my post below, I suspect that we'll end up signing off separately on trade deals the EU has negotiated.
My point was that we need trade deals that serve as barriers to entry back to the EU. For example a deal with Aus and NZ that majors heavily on UK imports of minerals and agricultural produce, and on exports of cars and financial services.
It's amazing that people on the right who would normally not hesitate to say that central planning is terrible, think that government manipulation of trade flows for ideological convenience is what we 'need'.
We need to do everything we can to foster free trade, and not give those who want to tie us to an ever-diminishing part of the world that we voted to leave, the opportunity to get us back in any time soon.
What free trade do you envisage that will be freer than what omes to shove we will be leaving in name only.
The customs union you mean, Norway is in the single market but outside the customs union in EFTA
No, I mean the single market. Leaving the customs union is just the icing on the cake.
Staying in the customs union would actually give more respect to the Leave vote than staying in the single market which requires free movement and ECJ jurisdiction and Labour is making some moves towards staying in the customs union if possible even if we still leave the single market. That would be similar to the position Turkey is moving towards
This Young stuff is striking. Either due diligence isn't a thing or there is tacit approval for his position on certain issues.
Good morning all.
I'm (as always) going to plump for cock-up over conspiracy.
Reading downthread, it's always a bit saddening to see fellow Brexit-folk being daft. It seems perfectly reasonable that people who disagree with Brexit should campaign to rejoin after we leave. Similarly, if there were ever a mandate to rejoin, whether via an election or referendum, then we'd have to respect that. My view is that this is an unlikely scenario, but stranger things have happened in my lifetime.
Democracy is a process, not an event. Brexit will cause economic pain and will have more drawbacks than benefits in the short term. Whether there'll be a compensatory benefits in the medium term is still up in the air. It's no wonder people are still cross.
This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.
That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
This Young stuff is striking. Either due diligence isn't a thing or there is tacit approval for his position on certain issues.
Good morning all.
I'm (as always) going to plump for cock-up over conspiracy....
Seems likely. This conference seems to have been very much off the radar even of the university which hosted it. From the Guardian article I linked to upthread:
...Young has also resigned from his post on the Fulbright Commission, which oversees student scholarship programmes between British and US universities.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, chair of the US-UK Fulbright Commission, said: “I accepted his resignation, which I believe to be in the best interests of the Fulbright programme.”
UCL said it had no knowledge of the conference, an invitation-only circle of 24 attendees, which could have led to a breach of the government’s Prevent regulations on campus extremism.
“UCL is investigating a potential breach of its room bookings process for events,” a spokesperson said.
“Our records indicate the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for the event to be allowed to go ahead.”...
This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.
That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.
Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.
Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?
This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.
That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
Should have written it on a bus.
It was a serious question - do you have any idea how much tax rates need to rise for tge 33 billion annual increase
This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.
That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
A quick google seems to imply a penny in the pound gets about £6bn. So it would be 5p in the pound or so. a staggering rise.
So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.
Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.
Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?
You should respect peoples own religious beliefs but he seems to have lied which is unacceptable. At least Jacob Rees Mogg is honest
So Tim Farron has come out (pun intended) and confessed that he didn't really mean it when he said that he didn't think that gay sex is a sin. Now it may be a while since I last went to mass, but I seem to recall that saying things that aren't true is regarded as a sin. It is also considered rather bad form in the secular side of life.
Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.
Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?
It is odd. It is very, very difficult to derive the idea that God hates queers from anything in the NT, unless you start off with an absolute determination to find it.
German economy posts strongest growth for 6 years at 2.2% in 2017.
Yesterday it was suggested we had grown by 0.6% last quarter, so that is equal to 2.4% annual increase
2017 growth will be in the region of 1.8-2.0% once all of the revisions are done. The "slowdown" the UK economy experienced will end up being as fictitious as the double dip recession was. I just want to see how the remainers will spin ~1.9% as poor and Germany's 2.2% as the boom of the ages.
This morning the NHS providers said that they need to increase spending from 120 billion to 153 billion by 2020 and that the Government should increase taxes and said it was not necessary to involve a cross party committee or Royal Commission, just provide the money.
That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
Should have written it on a bus.
It was a serious question - do you have any idea how much tax rates need to rise for tge 33 billion annual increase
Morning all,
A 1p raise in income tax raises about £4.5 billion.
Comments
FPT:
Theresa May is facing fresh reshuffle embarrassment amid claims that she breached the Ministerial Code with her Downing Street PR stunt to promote the Tory party’s new top ranks.
Labour has written to the Prime Minister to complain that she was in clear breach of rules which forbid the use of any Government and taxpayer-funded property for party political purposes, HuffPost can reveal.
May led a parade of Conservative party chairmen and vice-chairmen in Downing Street on Monday as she started her shake-up of ministerial ranks.
The Conservative Party subsequently retweeted the picture on both their main twitter account and the Conservative Press account.
But just one of the appointees, party chairman Brandon Lewis, was given a Government post and the rest were all party jobs.
Section 6 of the Ministerial Code – which was updated only this week - says that Government property should not be used for “party political activities”, a strict rule that carries sanctions if breached.
Tory spokesperson says some party activity is allowed at 10 Downing St.
I noted that they were standing on the pavement when the photo was taken, so not on government property but council property.
The number of promising therapies which have failed after decade long trials is considerable, including antibodies against beta amyloid (Pfizer gave up on its antibody bapineuzumab, which had been in trials since 2007, at the end of last year, and pretty well abandoned Alzheimer's research).
Surprises are not utterly impossible, but given the current highly imperfect understanding of the disease process, the difficulty of running Alzheimer's trials (the patients likely to be enrolled already have significant disease progression) and the lengthy process to show any effect, compared to say cancer, the idea that there will be a preventive vaccine on the market within a decade is utterly unrealistic, IMO.
I'd probably double that.
As an example, the Novartis trial is recruiting patients now; they don't expect meaningful result since for at least five years. And that's a single stage of a trial. (An Alzheimer's vaccine was trialled and abandoned as far back as 2002.)
I don't denigrate any of the efforts here - indeed given the cost and relatively low chances of success, the persistence of some companies in funding research has been heroic - and every failure provides more data, but similar optimism has been expressed over the last decade or more, only to be crushed.
Yes, huge strides have been made in immunology, but the difficulty of targeting the brain means that we are at a fairly early stage in fully understating what we're doing. Couple that with the very limited understanding of Alzheimer's itself, and the likelihood of any single therapy proving successful is low.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus
Goes way beyond a few off colour remarks on twitter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/oprah-winfrey-fame-hungry-peddler-fake-empathy-would-terrible/
https://www.politico.eu/article/macierewicz-mateusz-morawiecki-polish-reshuffle-removes-controversial-ministers/
Rather more liberal publications (Slate, for example) have already expressed serious reservations. That a Telegraph opinion writer should publish a disobliging piece is rather less surprising, and of little consequence - after all, it's Democrats who will decide the fate of her would be candidacy.
(FWIW, I think her encouragement of crank opinions on for example vaccines ought to be disqualificatory.)
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1001531/chinas-die-hard-star-wars-fans-respond-to-last-jedi-flop
The most upvoted review complains that “the whole film really insults the IQ of its audience,” and demands to know how the universe could possibly be ruled by such an incompetent Galactic Empire. “In Star Wars, it seems only Darth Vader had a brain — it’s such a shame he’s already dead,” the reviewer concludes.
Lay at 10/1. Probably lay at 25/1 on the savings account principle.
May -6
Corbyn -6
Blair -42
Clegg -24 (the next worst)
Carney +10 - the only positive.
Blair - the great white hope of Remainia?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/az/arizona_senate_republican_primary-6235.html
Blair would probably be one of the worst people to front a rejoin campaign.
Adonis had a high level of don’t knows but also a quite high negative rating.
And there’s no “probably” about Blair being the worst person to front rejoin. “Unequivocaly” is nearer the mark
I suspect, only suspect, because I’m well out of touch now, that we might get somewhere on Alzheimers fairly soon, but it’ll be around the prevention, or prevention of further deterioration. We’re a long way from reversal.
Some of the data from DIAN is just incredible
We also need to get some good trade deals in place as soon as possible after we leave the EU. Not only is it good per se, but makes rejoining the EU later all the more difficult - it’s clear the Remainers aren’t going to give up even after we’ve left.
Hope to listen to the podcast through the day (mostly writing so listening to speech is a bit tricky to do at the same time).
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565511
And wouldn't the latter be unpublished, price sensitive information ?
It'll take some changes for the tories. They need new blood, and new bold ideas. But things like the manifesto and the leader couldn't be as bad as the last GE.
https://twitter.com/JaneEJuanita/status/951212164903301120
I'm (as always) going to plump for cock-up over conspiracy.
Reading downthread, it's always a bit saddening to see fellow Brexit-folk being daft. It seems perfectly reasonable that people who disagree with Brexit should campaign to rejoin after we leave. Similarly, if there were ever a mandate to rejoin, whether via an election or referendum, then we'd have to respect that. My view is that this is an unlikely scenario, but stranger things have happened in my lifetime.
Democracy is a process, not an event. Brexit will cause economic pain and will have more drawbacks than benefits in the short term. Whether there'll be a compensatory benefits in the medium term is still up in the air. It's no wonder people are still cross.
https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/951373347782320129
That is an increase of 33 billion per year for the NHS and no government is going to be able to increase taxes by that much. As a matter of interest does anyone know how much the Ni or tax rates needs to rise to achieve the 33 billion
I noticed one of the 'intelligence' nutjobs he follows was retweeting any and all articles in support of Young.
The issue with Young isn't to do with issues, its to do with language.
...Young has also resigned from his post on the Fulbright Commission, which oversees student scholarship programmes between British and US universities.
Sir Nigel Sheinwald, chair of the US-UK Fulbright Commission, said: “I accepted his resignation, which I believe to be in the best interests of the Fulbright programme.”
UCL said it had no knowledge of the conference, an invitation-only circle of 24 attendees, which could have led to a breach of the government’s Prevent regulations on campus extremism.
“UCL is investigating a potential breach of its room bookings process for events,” a spokesperson said.
“Our records indicate the university was not informed in advance about the speakers and content of the conference series, as it should have been for the event to be allowed to go ahead.”...
Farron might be able to say a few Hail Marys to be absolved of his sin (not sure how it works in his particular strand of god-bothering), but the notion that you can't believe a word the LibDems say during an election campaign is reinforced.
Why are some religionists so obsessed with gender and sexuality?
A 1p raise in income tax raises about £4.5 billion.