Is it funny that on the very day a handful of MPs have finally switched from being against the deal to for it that research from the BBC indicates May would, even with those switches, face one of if not the biggest defeats ever for a government. The first good news they've had for a month, but barely a flicker of light amid the darkness.
The deal needs to be voted on, everything will flow from that and I still think TM has a good chance of achieving a deal as no deal is off the table, and the other options are as, if not more, difficult
Your optimism is an inspiration against my gloomy pessimism, but with best case scenarios of the defeat being if the gov can manage to lose by less than three figures, I've never seen such a dead proposal.
Not sure it is optimism but more instinct, as it is going to be deal or remain and even if TM deal goes down by 200, there is no other option other than no deal or remain
Did you mean no deal or remain at the end?
I expressed it poorly and have edited it. If the deal goes down the idea the choice would be no deal or remain is crazy
It's not if no deal isn't as bad as you're imagining. Lesson from last few years should be that nothing is impossible in politics.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
Why resign now ? Because *if* the deal is still going down by Tuesday evening then the deal + that subsequently passes will be much much softer to buy Labour votes. If you want a future in the Cobservative Party you may well decide you have to quit ratger than vote for it. Taking a hit for a solution is one thing. Taking a hit to vote for something doomed is another. It will depend on the head count on Tuesday evening before the vote.
Why resign now ? Because *if* the deal is still going down by Tuesday evening then the deal + that subsequently passes will be much much softer to buy Labour votes. If you want a future in the Cobservative Party you may well decide you have to quit ratger than vote for it. Taking a hit for a solution is one thing. Taking a hit to vote for something doomed is another. It will depend on the head count on Tuesday evening before the vote.
The vote has been known to be doomed for a long time, the narrative since well before the MV was pulled was around whether it could lose by a small enough amount to salvage it. And even if someone is making the calculation you suggest it still boggles the mind that they didn't make that play a lot sooner. If not around the time Raab went then in the month that followed as people came out for or against, including plenty of ministers.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
Is it funny that on the very day a handful of MPs have finally switched from being against the deal to for it that research from the BBC indicates May would, even with those switches, face one of if not the biggest defeats ever for a government. The first good news they've had for a month, but barely a flicker of light amid the darkness.
The deal needs to be voted on, everything will flow from that and I still think TM has a good chance of achieving a deal as no deal is off the table, and the other options are as, if not more, difficult
Your optimism is an inspiration against my gloomy pessimism, but with best case scenarios of the defeat being if the gov can manage to lose by less than three figures, I've never seen such a dead proposal.
Not sure it is optimism but more instinct, as it is going to be deal or remain and even if TM deal goes down by 200, there is no other option other than no deal or remain
Did you mean no deal or remain at the end?
I expressed it poorly and have edited it. If the deal goes down the idea the choice would be no deal or remain is crazy
It's not if no deal isn't as bad as you're imagining. Lesson from last few years should be that nothing is impossible in politics.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
It seems like a real risk to me, and I find it hard to believe parliamentarians cannot see that risk, so when they seem to indicate they think the risk is non-existent because of course their plan b will sail through no problem if only labour/erg/May stop faffing about, I struggle to believe that.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
All good questions. There is one answer. Accept TM deal and move on
Regardless of any merits the deal has (it has none) it should be rejected on principle just to deny May a victory. She deserves humiliation after her program of relentless self-interest and dishonesty.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
It doesn't have to go through parliaments and the Council of Ministers has quite strong peer pressure in emergency situations, so if there's an actual proposal other than "wait 3 months then resume panicked faffing" an extension should go through. There's no Walloon veto. It's not a sure thing, but it is highly likely.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
Yes that is all I found. If that is it, one EDM signed by 200+ MPs from years ago, I will say he isn't then, as in government he wasn't pushing this (as far as I am aware) and the Lib Dem made it clear years ago that they now believe it is a waste of money.
Willing to stand corrected if he has a pattern of this.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
All good questions. There is one answer. Accept TM deal and move on
Regardless of any merits the deal has (it has none) it should be rejected on principle just to deny May a victory. She deserves humiliation after her program of relentless self-interest and dishonesty.
So even if it had huge merit it should be rejected because of May personally? What a bloody stupid reaction that would be. The deal has enough reasons to be opposed as it is (as you yourself note in believing it has no merit at all), there's no need to pretend that even if it was a fantastic deal we should hope it is shot down because May is crap and dishonest. One might as well say that even if Corbyn/BoJo was going to usher in an era of unparalleled freedom and prosperity (they aren't), they should be opposed because they have a beard/are fat.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
That Liberal policy is that patients have maximum freedom over treatment as long as it is safe should be cause for concern. A multitude of treatments are safe, and utterly useless.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Parliament wouldn’t authorise the second invocation
I note that Corbyn and McDonnell also both supported that EDM, amongst 206 others...
To be fair, didn't Corbyn basically sign every EDM other than ones being positive about Israel?
However, if I remember correctly, Comrade Corbyn has remained at least positive sounding on this in recent years, rather than tell people it is a massive scam and a waste of money.
The number of MPs suckered in by this is really rather scary.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
That Liberal policy is that patients have maximum freedom over treatment as long as it is safe should be cause for concern. A multitude of treatments are safe, and utterly useless.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.
TBF a number of Leavers said they were not happy with the deal but would try and influence any improvements from the inside of government
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Do they have the powers to review magic?
Not currently. NICE can only currently adjudicate on licensed medicines, not unlicensed ones such as homeopathy. Extending NICE's remit to cover unlicensed health products is quite a reasonable proposal.
Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.
I note that Corbyn and McDonnell also both supported that EDM, amongst 206 others...
To be fair, didn't Corbyn basically sign every EDM other than ones being positive about Israel?
However, if I remember correctly, Comrade Corbyn has remained at least positive sounding on this in recent years, rather than tell people it is a massive scam and a waste of money.
The number of MPs suckered in by this is really rather scary.
Indeed. I was bloody shocked when I saw how many of the credulous sods had signed it.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.
There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.
If a minister, potentially in a different department, believes he or she is doing important work then why not concentrate on that until the vote? Why resign prematurely if you don't have to?
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.
There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.
Not without looking very silly. Other people have had the courage to stand up and be counted.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Do they have the powers to review magic?
Not currently. NICE can only currently adjudicate on licensed medicines, not unlicensed ones such as homeopathy. Extending NICE's remit to cover unlicensed health products is quite a reasonable proposal.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.
Another former minister told the Guardian that serving ministers could stand down to vote against the deal.
If I could be forgiven crudeness for the moment, what in the ever living fuck are these clowns playing at? Why, after all this time, would someone quit now to vote against the deal?
Because they've waited until the last moment to see if there were any forthcoming concessions by Europe in May's fabled late negotiations to see if it could make this bitter pill easier to swallow.
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then tried to say she would get some more, but given her policy for a month was that was not possible, there's no justifiable reason someone who needed the concessions to stay in post (as opposed to wanting concessions but able to vote for the deal as is) had not quit in advance of the last minute pulling of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.
There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.
Not without looking very silly. Other people have had the courage to stand up and be counted.
In dribs and drabs when its suited them, not all at once. There hasn't been a single date when people were obliged to resign by.
Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.
A dangerous game for politicians to play, after all when they fall from grace they will be in the dock.
I'm struck by the fact that he seems to think that smoking marijuana was the worst thing he's done. But his comment that "I have not been ruling my house well" does show almost British understatement.
On resignations, a good rule is to ignore any report using the words "could" or "might".
No. 10s line for a month before the MV was pulled was there would be no changes. Yes she then triedg of the MV.
Last minute resignations are standard for any major rebellion.
Except we've had numerous periods of resignations over this. I'm sorry, a minister standing up now and saying the deal is unacceptable while collecting a ministerial salary for months on end gets no respect from me.
A minister using his role to try and shape what is happening until the last possible second does get respect from me. Just as Robin Cook did, was Robin Cook dishonorable?
I don't know enough about the circumstances to judge that situation, I wasn't paying attention at the time. But if the deal was unacceptable that would have been clear to someone a long time before now. They cannot claim to have had a sudden epiphany and realised it was unacceptable.
There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.
Not without looking very silly. Other people have had the courage to stand up and be counted.
In dribs and drabs when its suited them, not all at once. There hasn't been a single date when people were obliged to resign by.
I do not think they are obliged to resign. I just think the manner and timing of a resignation can significant affect whether the choice of when and how to resign is justifiable and respectable. The reason to do so also affects this, since if the reason is something that was locked in a long time ago it makes sticking around harder to explain. If it was in reaction to a recent lockdown of policy that's more reasonable, perhaps the issue is one of fine balance etc etc. Different levels of courage will be on display. On this issue, at this time? The reason for the switch would need to be very good to not look like a fool.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee did recognise that many users derive benefit from its use and did not argue that such treatments should be banned. "The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments. "We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Do they have the powers to review magic?
Not currently. NICE can only currently adjudicate on licensed medicines, not unlicensed ones such as homeopathy. Extending NICE's remit to cover unlicensed health products is quite a reasonable proposal.
Some candidates worth investigating:
Sunshine Sex MDMA
They had a large cardio study on the power of prayer. Decent results on secondary endpoints but didn’t improve survival IIRC.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.
But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.
What an odd beast the human animal is. Who'd be a doctor, eh?
That was a very interesting study, on people disabled by back pain in Blackpool. Clearly not all malingerers either. It didn't work for everyone, but for some it transformed lives.
Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.
A dangerous game for politicians to play, after all when they fall from grace they will be in the dock.
I understand their temptation, but given part of the furore about Bercow was whether he really gave sufficient thought to the wider and longer term implications of his actions, regardless of whether the decision in itself was well intentioned, I'm not sure seeking to punish him in this way displays the right message on that front.
There is no epiphany, there is just no obligation to resign until the vote. So they can continue to do their job until the vote and resign on the day of the vote.
Not without looking very silly. Other people have had the courage to stand up and be counted.
In dribs and drabs when its suited them, not all at once. There hasn't been a single date when people were obliged to resign by.
I do not think they are obliged to resign. I just think the manner and timing of a resignation can significant affect whether the choice of when and how to resign is justifiable and respectable. The reason to do so also affects this, since if the reason is something that was locked in a long time ago it makes sticking around harder to explain. If it was in reaction to a recent lockdown of policy that's more reasonable, perhaps the issue is one of fine balance etc etc. Different levels of courage will be on display. On this issue, at this time? The reason for the switch would need to be very good to not look like a fool.
Many policies are always locked in, in advance. Its still standard for resignations to happen on the day of the vote. Something can always change unexpectedly beforehand afterall.
Especially with a rebellion this size looming, May pulling a rabbit from a hat has always been a possibility.
Someone who resigns when they're obliged to rather than prematurely may look silly to you ... I think someone who resigns prematurely then sees the government change tact so they get what they want but its too late they've resigned already looks even sillier.
Who would strike you as a good choice of Liberal leader?
Lamb is thoughtful, Moran is PR savvy. Either of those would be a good choice. Moran might struggle to hold her seat, mind.
Lambo is in favour of flogging water to the NHS at extortionate prices, putting it in little bottles and giving it to the public as medicine.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
Is he? Linky please.
""A recent report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the provision of homeopathy through the NHS and called for funding by the NHS to be stopped. The Committee
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.
What an odd beast the human animal is. Who'd be a doctor, eh?
That was a very interesting study, on people disabled by back pain in Blackpool. Clearly not all malingerers either. It didn't work for everyone, but for some it transformed lives.
I recently listened to Derren Brown and he was talking about the Miracles stage show. He said despite everybody knowing they were at a magic show and that part of the show with fake faith healing, works by getting people adrenaline flowing so some temporarily have pain masked and obviously those who go on stage are self selecting, he has been contacted by a few people whose previous ailment has gone (despite them knowing its a trick, his people repeating this to them, etc).
Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.
A dangerous game for politicians to play, after all when they fall from grace they will be in the dock.
I understand their temptation, but given part of the furore about Bercow was whether he really gave sufficient thought to the wider and longer term implications of his actions, regardless of whether the decision in itself was well intentioned, I'm not sure seeking to punish him in this way displays the right message on that front.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.
But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".
No they didn't. There was a clear ruling that so-called abusive uses of revocation are not allowed, and the ECJ are the arbiters.
‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’
Pay is one thing, but I wouldn't think changing the pension scheme retrospectively (however generous it may be, I have no idea) would stand up in court. It's not done for criminals either.
A dangerous game for politicians to play, after all when they fall from grace they will be in the dock.
I understand their temptation, but given part of the furore about Bercow was whether he really gave sufficient thought to the wider and longer term implications of his actions, regardless of whether the decision in itself was well intentioned, I'm not sure seeking to punish him in this way displays the right message on that front.
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.
But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".
No they didn't. There was a clear ruling that so-called abusive uses of revocation are not allowed, and the ECJ are the arbiters.
‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’
Parliament is wasting time pretending it is in control.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Yes they could, because the ECJ are the ones who decide if the revocation is proper.
But they already did decide that any revocation of A50 would be proper as long as it was in accordance with the UK's own "constitutional requirements".
No they didn't. There was a clear ruling that so-called abusive uses of revocation are not allowed, and the ECJ are the arbiters.
‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’
Except that we would have the power to revoke Article 50, then re-invoke it a few days later if we wanted (effectively a two-year extension) and the EU couldn't do a thing to stop us, according to the ECJ's ruling.
Probably not.
However, screwing them around like that isn't exactly going to go down well. We'd return for negotiations and get told the deal is there, take it or piss off.
Are we building up to NICE investigating Brexit and surrounding claims.
I have mixed feelings about NICE. On the one hand it is a very worthwhile attempt at applying scientific cost benefit analysis to funding medicines, but it is also used by CCGs to delay the introduction of highly effective medications. They do this by refusing to fund until NICE ajudicates. I have a cousin who is having to self fund a cancer drug as a result.
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Not at all. I am more than happy for people to fill up their little bottles from their kitchen taps.
For placebos to work people need to believe they might work.
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Interestingly, and surprisingly, placebos still work when people know that they are placebos.
What an odd beast the human animal is. Who'd be a doctor, eh?
That was a very interesting study, on people disabled by back pain in Blackpool. Clearly not all malingerers either. It didn't work for everyone, but for some it transformed lives.
I recently listened to Derren Brown and he was talking about the Miracles stage show. He said despite everybody knowing they were at a magic show and that part of the show with fake faith healing, works by getting people adrenaline flowing so some temporarily have pain masked and obviously those who go on stage are self selecting, he has been contacted by a few people whose previous ailment has gone (despite them knowing its a trick, his people repeating this to them, etc).
Derren Brown is a very clever bloke. His books are well worth reading.
Derren Brown is a very clever bloke. His books are well worth reading.
I find his recent tv show extremely disappointing and stage shows contain too much filler of tricks that are well known by even casual magicians. It feels like he has signed up to do too many things on too regular basis.
That all been said, if you watch his old videos for the magic trade and get him sat down talking about wider things than just his day job, he is super interesting and just oozes class and talent e.g. He went on Joe Rogan and Sam Harris podcasts and they had him talking about things outside of simply magic.
Voting Leave as a placebo ( for the 2 million odd irregular voters who came out for the first time in 20 years ) is a fascinating concept. On the one hand it's what people like me completely and utterly missed. That changing *something* even if folk didn't quite know what the change was to coukd be very very powerful if you are in pain. It's interesting the ONS ' happiness ' measure for England spiked in 2016 and retail sales went up after the Leave vote.
On the other hand Brexit isn't a sugar pill. It's plunged the country into 5 to 7 years of existential debate and near constitutional crisis.
Voting Leave as a placebo ( for the 2 million odd irregular voters who came out for the first time in 20 years ) is a fascinating concept. On the one hand it's what people like me completely and utterly missed. That changing *something* even if folk didn't quite know what the change was to coukd be very very powerful if you are in pain. It's interesting the ONS ' happiness ' measure for England spiked in 2016 and retail sales went up after the Leave vote.
On the other hand Brexit isn't a sugar pill. It's plunged the country into 5 to 7 years of existential debate and near constitutional crisis.
Yes, Brexit is a transitory hallucinogen, which promises Taking Back Control, yet actually takes control away from those smoking it.
I am not sure you can have much chance of competing at a world level if that is the case. Hopefully he can get it sorted out post-retirement, as living with that for another 50 years sounds horrendous.
Comments
Doesn’t strike me as a good choice for LD leader.
China's is actually falling.
I expect the basket that they will initially try to place all the eggs in will be labelled 'Extention'
For that to be granted how long before 29th March do we need to apply?
Would they allow an extention beyond 29th March while the individual EU states are deliberating the request?
What are the odds that at least one nation will be belligerent, bloody minded or confrontational and say no?
Sorry, no extention, Wallonia voted no, so you are past the deadline date and now out with no deal.
Our ingenious MPs succeed in achieving the goal they wanted to avoid and have tried to legislate against.
I think we can rule him out on that basis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46827601/the-dad-who-found-out-he-wasn-t-his-kids-biological-father
"The Liberal Democrats believe that, as a basic principle, individuals should have maximum freedom about how they choose to get treated, so long as the therapy is safe. When it comes to NHS provision, we support a review by NICE into the cost effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative (CAMs) therapies, including homeopathy; as well as expanding the work of NICE to look at the cost-effectiveness of existing conventional treatments.
"We know that many complementary therapies are popular with the public. The NHS budget is limited and we want to make sure that NHS funding is focused on treatments which are efficacious and cost-effective. NICE reviews of all existing treatments would give us the best possible basis for future decisions over funding."
from:
http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/03/11/what-the-liberal-democrat-position-on-homeopathy-is/
The placebo effect is well established in medicine
A quick google and the only thing I can find is some EDM from years and years ago, that was signed by 200+ MPs.
And if that fails there's always revoke...
I’d be happy for NICE to review homeopathic treatments and come up with a fair price for them
Willing to stand corrected if he has a pattern of this.
However, if I remember correctly, Comrade Corbyn has remained at least positive sounding on this in recent years, rather than tell people it is a massive scam and a waste of money.
The number of MPs suckered in by this is really rather scary.
Indeed placebos can be very cost effective
What would you consider extortionate? How much does homeopathy water cost compared to that which emerges from your kitchen tap?
I think the going rate for chalk pills is 5p for a packet of 20 and I have no issue with homeopathy being reimbursed at an equivalent price as that reflects its therapeutic value pretty accurately
Indeed. I was bloody shocked when I saw how many of the credulous sods had signed it.
If a minister, potentially in a different department, believes he or she is doing important work then why not concentrate on that until the vote? Why resign prematurely if you don't have to?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bmblb8
Sunshine
Sex
MDMA
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/10/donnie-romero-pastor-stedfast-baptist-church-resigns-prostitutes
I'm struck by the fact that he seems to think that smoking marijuana was the worst thing he's done. But his comment that "I have not been ruling my house well" does show almost British understatement.
On resignations, a good rule is to ignore any report using the words "could" or "might".
Especially with a rebellion this size looming, May pulling a rabbit from a hat has always been a possibility.
Someone who resigns when they're obliged to rather than prematurely may look silly to you ... I think someone who resigns prematurely then sees the government change tact so they get what they want but its too late they've resigned already looks even sillier.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1083407743170547713?s=19
‘In the second place, the antidote to the misuse of the right of withdrawal can be found in the general principle that abusive practices are prohibited, established by the Court, according to which EU law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends and the application of EU legislation cannot be extended to cover abusive practices by economic operators. (93) That general principle could be applied in the context of Article 50 TEU, if a Member State engaged in an abusive practice of using successive notifications and revocations in order to improve the terms of its withdrawal from the European Union.’
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-small-print-of-todays-article-50-opinion-reveals-yet-another-ecj-power-grab/
I do wonder if revoking it only to invoke it again would be viewed as unequivocal and unconditional.
However, screwing them around like that isn't exactly going to go down well. We'd return for negotiations and get told the deal is there, take it or piss off.
That all been said, if you watch his old videos for the magic trade and get him sat down talking about wider things than just his day job, he is super interesting and just oozes class and talent e.g. He went on Joe Rogan and Sam Harris podcasts and they had him talking about things outside of simply magic.
https://www.twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1083505551902941185
First you spend the disaster money on America Works the wall, then you challenge Congress to replace the money in case there's an actual disaster.
I'm not sure if the courts would end up stopping it but it gets him out of the shutdown without losing too much face.
On the other hand Brexit isn't a sugar pill. It's plunged the country into 5 to 7 years of existential debate and near constitutional crisis.
Only joking, very sad to hear, but I think we all know its been coming. Britain's best ever tennis player.
The former world No 1 added that even “putting shoes and socks on” is causing him pain at present.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/11/tearful-andy-murray-to-retire-after-2019-wimbledon-australian-open
I am not sure you can have much chance of competing at a world level if that is the case. Hopefully he can get it sorted out post-retirement, as living with that for another 50 years sounds horrendous.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083522347620020225