Questioner If I have 3 apples and the Tories give me 2 more apples do I have 8 apples.
Lewis eventually admits that it's 32k more and we won't be losing 18k.
So for any normal person that's 32k more. Much hilarity when Lewis tried to spin it as 50k
Its 50k more if you spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it. But fine if you want to say 32k more than's still more.
There would have been 280k at the end of next Parliament. Under these plans there will be 330k instead. You tell me what the difference is between 280k and 330k.
Why should nurse retention suddenly dramatically improve? It has been flat for a decade, as vacancies grow.
There were about 4 policies listed on Sky the other day all aimed at improving retention. Plus there's the fact that people have said they're leaving because of pressures so if the pressures are lifted and more are recruited then that would make those working happier to stay wouldn't it? Regardless of partisan politics I'm sure you'd agree improving retention would be a good thing wouldn't you?
Parents take Ofsted reports into account when choosing schools and schools advertis them heavily to attract pupils. A bit like taking into account the tripadvisor stars before choosing a restaurant. Ratings are more important to the man on the clapham omnibus than ever and colour ALL decisions massively. I can think of no parent who would think scrapping Ofsted is a good idea, regardless of the pedagogical arguments.
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Questioner If I have 3 apples and the Tories give me 2 more apples do I have 8 apples.
Lewis eventually admits that it's 32k more and we won't be losing 18k.
So for any normal person that's 32k more. Much hilarity when Lewis tried to spin it as 50k
Tories = Liars has a lot of cut through. People may not like Corbyn, but they do believe him.
I think they believe him slightly more than Johnson - and that's all he needs.
We do see this in the leadership rankings, as Johnson falls Corbyn seems to climb
Corbyn trails BJ in trustworthiness in the polling
I think it depends on the poll doesn't it - I've seen him ahead in others, behind in some. It's not much of a gap from what I've seen, a few points in it. But my point is that Corbyn seems to be going up, Johnson seems to be going down
Parents take Ofsted reports into account when choosing schools and schools advertis them heavily to attract pupils. A bit like taking into account the tripadvisor stars before choosing a restaurant. Ratings are more important to the man on the clapham omnibus than ever and colour ALL decisions massively. I can think of no parent who would think scrapping Ofsted is a good idea, regardless of the pedagogical arguments.
My daughter is in year 1 of Primary School. Its not the closest school to my home (indeed I drive past another school to get her there) but it had a great Ofsted report so we applied for it and our daughter was accepted. She did her Reception year there and half of Year 1 and already very happy we researched Ofsted etc, her school is very good, she's happy there and so are we.
Parents take Ofsted reports into account when choosing schools and schools advertis them heavily to attract pupils. A bit like taking into account the tripadvisor stars before choosing a restaurant. Ratings are more important to the man on the clapham omnibus than ever and colour ALL decisions massively. I can think of no parent who would think scrapping Ofsted is a good idea, regardless of the pedagogical arguments.
I did two as a school governor, they're not particularly pleasant and it's not a great feeling to be judged on five years' work in a day. But I agree with this, and I think the profession is unrealistic in wanting it scrapped. On the whole, I find Ofsted pretty accurate (in the same way Andrew Neil is. Not much sugar-coating). The schools which get a nasty surprise are the ones with an unrealistic view of their own greatness, or unwillingness to get with the programme and tell the right story on the day.
What *did* make life easier back then* was a well-equipped local authority advisory service which would have told you long before Ofsted arrived if you were a bit shit. That support has in large part gone now which I think is to be regretted.
(* I make it sound like it was 1986. It was actually about 5 years ago)
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Parents take Ofsted reports into account when choosing schools and schools advertis them heavily to attract pupils. A bit like taking into account the tripadvisor stars before choosing a restaurant. Ratings are more important to the man on the clapham omnibus than ever and colour ALL decisions massively. I can think of no parent who would think scrapping Ofsted is a good idea, regardless of the pedagogical arguments.
My daughter is in year 1 of Primary School. Its not the closest school to my home (indeed I drive past another school to get her there) but it had a great Ofsted report so we applied for it and our daughter was accepted. She did her Reception year there and half of Year 1 and already very happy we researched Ofsted etc, her school is very good, she's happy there and so are we.
What I would say is that it's only one piece of evidence. Talk to other parents to get a more holistic vibe about the place. Ours was always Good.. and I suspect not all that close to Outstanding, mainly because its achievement was only Good. Above average but not stellar. But parents *loved* the place, the way it was run, the attention to special needs etc.
Apart from that.. a lot of Ofsteds are ten years old now.. so I'd check the sell-by date on it, and look up whether the head and key staff are the same.
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
The bit about it got it right last time wasnt really true. A mrp closer to polling day looked uncannily spot on is the truth. What was published last night has led to the hash Tories made today.
First rule of elections is get out there and constantly control the board don’t take your foot off the gas. Tories are defending their poll lead. It’s not a good look.
Apparently they lost 9 (?) seats in a week, if that momentum continues we're going to be rapidly approaching a HP.
You would get about halfway there before running out of time. I can't find the changes in the seat totals predicted by the MRP last time, as the election approached, but the national vote shares from it were pretty static, even as the normal polls had Labour closing the gap. I wonder whether there is something different about the MRP approach that manages to crystallise the voting decision for poll respondents in advance of polling day? I think that, were Labour to close the gap in the MRP between now and polling day that would be quite different to what happened in 2017. I don't think the YouGov MRP ever predicted a Conservative majority for the 2017GE. Labour and/or the Lib Dems have a hell of a job of work to do to turn this around.
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Johnson agreed a withdrawal agreement.
AKA a deal. 😂
North sea border, divorce payment, and permanent status for migrants, but No Deal terms still very likely in 13 months time (apart from NI).
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Vince is right on the "revoke in majority; 2nd ref if not" line. Swinson only went as far as that (though I agree it was reported rather more shorthand).
I agree with you about Swinson. I worried before the campaign (on the basis of a couple of big podium speeches) that she'd come across as a bit shouty and angry. But I think she's softened her tone and does far better in something like the QT format last week. But I'm also realistic enough to know mine is a minority view. I'd still be sweating if I was a marginal towny southern Tory though.
Boris Johnson's WA lays out the framework in which the UK will seak a deal, it is not a deal, hence why it's only phase 1 of the negotiations. Actually getting a deal (i.e. a FTA or some kind of other relationship) comes in phase 2, hence why Johnson saying "get Brexit done" is a complete and utter lie.
Questioner If I have 3 apples and the Tories give me 2 more apples do I have 8 apples.
Lewis eventually admits that it's 32k more and we won't be losing 18k.
So for any normal person that's 32k more. Much hilarity when Lewis tried to spin it as 50k
Tories = Liars has a lot of cut through. People may not like Corbyn, but they do believe him.
I think they believe him slightly more than Johnson - and that's all he needs.
We do see this in the leadership rankings, as Johnson falls Corbyn seems to climb
Corbyn trails BJ in trustworthiness in the polling
I think it depends on the poll doesn't it - I've seen him ahead in others, behind in some. It's not much of a gap from what I've seen, a few points in it. But my point is that Corbyn seems to be going up, Johnson seems to be going down
The more people see of BoZo the more people realise what a fraud he is. That is why the Tories have him in primary schools rather than press interviews.
Whereas Corbyn is the bees-knees? Never mind the Perve Party
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Johnson agreed a withdrawal agreement.
Oh, preparing the ground for stage 2 of dying in a ditch.
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Johnson agreed a withdrawal agreement.
AKA a deal. 😂
No it isn't a deal at all. Stop lying.
oh the irony
Lying is one of those irregular verbs. Interesting how he came out of nowhere to be one of the most partisan posters on here.
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Rougher than medicine with all its pension problems?
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Johnson agreed a withdrawal agreement.
AKA a deal. 😂
North sea border, divorce payment, and permanent status for migrants, but No Deal terms still very likely in 13 months time (apart from NI).
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Rougher than medicine with all its pension problems?
Nah my accountant has done me fine over the pension taper tax. I caught on in time to avoid the 100% marginal rate by dropping some sessions. Some of my Tory voting colleagues fuming though!
Boris Johnson's WA lays out the framework in which the UK will seak a deal, it is not a deal, hence why it's only phase 1 of the negotiations. Actually getting a deal (i.e. a FTA or some kind of other relationship) comes in phase 2, hence why Johnson saying "get Brexit done" is a complete and utter lie.
Sorry, isn't that the argument about Corbyn's allegation about selling the NHS? Plagiarism rears its head again.
Questioner If I have 3 apples and the Tories give me 2 more apples do I have 8 apples.
Lewis eventually admits that it's 32k more and we won't be losing 18k.
So for any normal person that's 32k more. Much hilarity when Lewis tried to spin it as 50k
Tories = Liars has a lot of cut through. People may not like Corbyn, but they do believe him.
I think they believe him slightly more than Johnson - and that's all he needs.
We do see this in the leadership rankings, as Johnson falls Corbyn seems to climb
Corbyn trails BJ in trustworthiness in the polling
I think it depends on the poll doesn't it - I've seen him ahead in others, behind in some. It's not much of a gap from what I've seen, a few points in it. But my point is that Corbyn seems to be going up, Johnson seems to be going down
The more people see of BoZo the more people realise what a fraud he is. That is why the Tories have him in primary schools rather than press interviews.
Whereas Corbyn is the bees-knees? Never mind the Perve Party
Nah, I'm not voting for him. We have an excellent LD candidate here..
Do find it funny that people attack Labour's spending yet are happy to walk over the cliff with Johnson on a No Deal Brexit which the IFS concludes will be a hell of a lot worse
Boris agreed a deal. Whatever you think of it, it ain't No Deal.
Johnson agreed a withdrawal agreement.
AKA a deal. 😂
No it isn't a deal at all. Stop lying.
oh the irony
Lying is one of those irregular verbs. Interesting how he came out of nowhere to be one of the most partisan posters on here.
I could offer an alternative origin but I'm in polite mode for this millisecond. I type quick.
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Fair assessment on the policy Foxy. Not many to choose from on the leadership back in the summer. Layla, Luciana and Chukka are the media stars for me, but only one of them might be an MP at Xmas. I think North Norfolk or Hallam might have been a better bet for Chukka. Luciana seems to be in Finchley for obvious reasons but its still a stretch to win. I do like Ed Davey for his intellect but he is pale stale and male. I feel sorry for Jo but she does look a bit out of her depth, despite having a decent amount of experience.
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Rougher than medicine with all its pension problems?
Nah my accountant has done me fine over the pension taper tax. I caught on in time to avoid the 100% marginal rate by dropping some sessions. Some of my Tory voting colleagues fuming though!
I'm so pleased for you. It must be small consolation for all the troubled times you've been through.
Questioner If I have 3 apples and the Tories give me 2 more apples do I have 8 apples.
Lewis eventually admits that it's 32k more and we won't be losing 18k.
So for any normal person that's 32k more. Much hilarity when Lewis tried to spin it as 50k
Tories = Liars has a lot of cut through. People may not like Corbyn, but they do believe him.
I think they believe him slightly more than Johnson - and that's all he needs.
We do see this in the leadership rankings, as Johnson falls Corbyn seems to climb
Corbyn trails BJ in trustworthiness in the polling
I think it depends on the poll doesn't it - I've seen him ahead in others, behind in some. It's not much of a gap from what I've seen, a few points in it. But my point is that Corbyn seems to be going up, Johnson seems to be going down
The more people see of BoZo the more people realise what a fraud he is. That is why the Tories have him in primary schools rather than press interviews.
Whereas Corbyn is the bees-knees? Never mind the Perve Party
Nah, I'm not voting for him. We have an excellent LD candidate here..
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Rougher than medicine with all its pension problems?
Nah my accountant has done me fine over the pension taper tax. I caught on in time to avoid the 100% marginal rate by dropping some sessions. Some of my Tory voting colleagues fuming though!
Might you really briefly explain the pensions issue for me please, Foxy?
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Fair assessment on the policy Foxy. Not many to choose from on the leadership back in the summer. Layla, Luciana and Chukka are the media stars for me, but only one of them might be an MP at Xmas. I think North Norfolk or Hallam might have been a better bet for Chukka. Luciana seems to be in Finchley for obvious reasons but its still a stretch to win. I do like Ed Davey for his intellect but he is pale stale and male. I feel sorry for Jo but she does look a bit out of her depth, despite having a decent amount of experience.
Norman Lamb js on record as sating he didn't agree with the revoke policy from Jon Swinson's Liberal Democrats so of they do lose North Norfolk they'll only have themselves to blame...
Vince is frosty towards it to. He says it’s only revoke if libdems win election otherwise it’s its same old 2nd ref policy. The nuclear weapon policy feels a lot different these days too? I don’t really want to say this about Jo Swinson. But as I think I am fair minded I do want to say it. As the election has moved on, she has grown on me. I quite like her now. She feels like one of us. You know, a pleb. I don’t think I would come across any different, serious and earnest and a little shrill if I job swapped with her tomorrow. Gotta feeling there’s a long way to go in this election.
I think Revoke was a reasonable response to the prospect of no deal in September, but should have reverted to #peoplesvote when a deal was proposed. I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
Rougher than medicine with all its pension problems?
Nah my accountant has done me fine over the pension taper tax. I caught on in time to avoid the 100% marginal rate by dropping some sessions. Some of my Tory voting colleagues fuming though!
Might you really briefly explain the pensions issue for me please, Foxy?
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main benefits we will lose if we cannot agree a FTA a with the EU.
Why then would a FTA agreement with the US increase costs. Surely tariffs would be removed and therefore prices lowered, and since we have NICE doing cost benefit analysis and approving drugs for NHS, we will not be paying higher prices for drugs. In fact since the NHS is a single organisation serving a market of 60m people surely there aren’t many bigger scale purchasers around who can guarantee continued use if the price is set at the right level. I understand the technical issue around patent extension which could increase costs long term but there is surely the counter argument that allowing pharma companies patent rights for slightly longer may mean that they are able to lower prices to a point where they can supply as they will be able to recover R&D costs over a longer period.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main benefits we will lose if we cannot agree a FTA a with the EU.
Why then would a FTA agreement with the US increase costs. Surely tariffs would be removed and therefore prices lowered, and since we have NICE doing cost benefit analysis and approving drugs for NHS, we will not be paying higher prices for drugs. In fact since the NHS is a single organisation serving a market of 60m people surely there aren’t many bigger scale purchasers around who can guarantee continued use if the price is set at the right level. I understand the technical issue around patent extension which could increase costs long term but there is surely the counter argument that allowing pharma companies patent rights for slightly longer may mean that they are able to lower prices to a point where they can supply as they will be able to recover R&D costs over a longer period.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
The US, under lobbying pressure from their pharmaceutical sector, would want us to introduce different rules so that we would pay higher prices for drugs. The most obvious example is to extend the lifetime of patents. This would mean paying higher prices for drugs under patent, instead of buying cheaper generics. There are some other, more obscure regulation changes that they are after that would also have the result of increasing what we pay for drugs. If you think about, there are broad analogues with some of the EU agriculture regulations, which have the effect of driving up prices for some foods and purposefully so - eg with the rules of geographical designation, such as with champagne, feta, etc. Now, if we want to reach a trade deal with the US then they will want something from us in return for what we want, and two of the biggest items on their list appear to be higher prices for drugs and lower food standards to allow access to US agricultural goods. Given how much US pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying you would expect they would pressure US politicians not to agree, or pass, a trade deal with us that did not give them some of what they want. One of the weird things about the US is the way in which companies use the law as a way to drive out competition, and so you sometimes find that US consumers are paying a lot more for some things than European consumers, contrary to a simplistic view of the US as a purer form of capitalism. Drug prices are one example, I think telecommunications are another.
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main bNHS NHS NHS
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
The US, under lobbying pressure from their pharmaceutical sector, would want us to introduce different rules so that we would pay higher prices for drugs. The most obvious example is to extend the lifetime of patents. This would mean paying higher prices for drugs under patent, instead of buying cheaper generics. There are some other, more obscure regulation changes that they are after that would also have the result of increasing what we pay for drugs. If you think about, there are broad analogues with some of the EU agriculture regulations, which have the effect of driving up prices for some foods and purposefully so - eg with the rules of geographical designation, such as with champagne, feta, etc. Now, if we want to reach a trade deal with the US then they will want something from us in return for what we want, and two of the biggest items on their list appear to be higher prices for drugs and lower food standards to allow access to US agricultural goods. Given how much US pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying you would expect they would pressure US politicians not to agree, or pass, a trade deal with us that did not give them some of what they want. One of the weird things about the US is the way in which companies use the law as a way to drive out competition, and so you sometimes find that US consumers are paying a lot more for some things than European consumers, contrary to a simplistic view of the US as a purer form of capitalism. Drug prices are one example, I think telecommunications are another.
You should have just said - Don't forget about the chlorinated chicken.
The story I heard from the TV, RE: Drug prices, is that apparently NICE is currently a price setter (which no economic theory of reasonable repute would be able to comprehend), and for some, so far unknown, reason would be, with a FTA, a price taker.
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main benefits we will lose if we cannot agree a FTA a with the EU.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
The US, under lobbying pressure from their pharmaceutical sector, would want us to introduce different rules so that we would pay higher prices for drugs. The most obvious example is to extend the lifetime of patents. This would mean paying higher prices for drugs under patent, instead of buying cheaper generics. There are some other, more obscure regulation changes that they are after that would also have the result of increasing what we pay for drugs. If you think about, there are broad analogues with some of the EU agriculture regulations, which have the effect of driving up prices for some foods and purposefully so - eg with the rules of geographical designation, such as with champagne, feta, etc. Now, if we want to reach a trade deal with the US then they will want something from us in return for what we want, and two of the biggest items on their list appear to be higher prices for drugs and lower food standards to allow access to US agricultural goods. Given how much US pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying you would expect they would pressure US politicians not to agree, or pass, a trade deal with us that did not give them some of what they want. One of the weird things about the US is the way in which companies use the law as a way to drive out competition, and so you sometimes find that US consumers are paying a lot more for some things than European consumers, contrary to a simplistic view of the US as a purer form of capitalism. Drug prices are one example, I think telecommunications are another.
I can't see a President Warren or President Sanders being too amenable to corporate lobbying.
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main benefits we will lose if we cannot agree a FTA a with the EU.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
The US, under lobbying pressure from their pharmaceutical sector, would want us to introduce different rules so that we would pay higher prices for drugs. The most obvious example is to extend the lifetime of patents. This would mean paying higher prices for drugs under patent, instead of buying cheaper generics. There are some other, more obscure regulation changes that they are after that would also have the result of increasing what we pay for drugs. If you think about, there are broad analogues with some of the EU agriculture regulations, which have the effect of driving up prices for some foods and purposefully so - eg with the rules of geographical designation, such as with champagne, feta, etc. Now, if we want to reach a trade deal with the US then they will want something from us in return for what we want, and two of the biggest items on their list appear to be higher prices for drugs and lower food standards to allow access to US agricultural goods. Given how much US pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying you would expect they would pressure US politicians not to agree, or pass, a trade deal with us that did not give them some of what they want. One of the weird things about the US is the way in which companies use the law as a way to drive out competition, and so you sometimes find that US consumers are paying a lot more for some things than European consumers, contrary to a simplistic view of the US as a purer form of capitalism. Drug prices are one example, I think telecommunications are another.
I can't see a President Warren or President Sanders being too amenable to corporate lobbying.
I can't see either of them expending much effort on a US-UK trade deal either.
BBC complains to Tories over Facebook advert https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50595930 What the Tories haven't learned is you don't do it yourself, you get an offshoot organization to do it e.g. Labour / Maomentum.
Also £2,200 at this stage of the campaign, that literally nothing. I presumed they were flooding Facebook with ads like these morning, noon and night.
Green Party's Siân Berry swept the floor with the platitudes from Sturgeon, Corbyn, Price, and Swinson; though they made good points individually - from Green policies. But not enough legislative change or money. Only from the Greens, Siân laid bare that the words didn't translate into anything as did presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
Our political system doesn't permit serious change until it's too late it seems. I hope I'm wrong. What this debate demonstrated with great clarity was how important the Green vote (plus scientists, Extinction Rebellion, and the activist movement) is in pressurising and motivating the other parties. Fearfully the politicial lip service isn't (yet) enough though.
The others talked the right talk, but when push comes to shove with actual changes and laws to retrofitting homes, stopping oil and gas, changing boilers, stopping flying - they daren't take any serious move. Scared of investing money (rather spend in on Waspi however rightful or not?), scared of voters kickback, scared of farmers (Plaid), scared of fishers (SNP), Unions (Lab), tax-payers, and drivers.
They were all fluent, but Corbyn particularly so (less than Berry); compare that to Gove and Johnson.
Johnson (and Farage, but not worth mentioning) and Gove are lying, duplicitous and vacuous. At least the panellists present could discuss. Johnson hasn't demonstrated that he would comprehend (or really care) what they were talking about.
BBC complains to Tories over Facebook advert https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50595930 What the Tories haven't learned is you don't do it yourself, you get an offshoot organization to do it e.g. Labour / Maomentum.
Also £2,200 at this stage of the campaign, that literally nothing. I presumed they were flooding Facebook with ads like these morning, noon and night.
My experience of facebook was that they were flooding facebook with ads from fake grassroots organisations that had been set up on October 29th - "Parents4Education", "UK4Economy", etc, to run attack ads against Corbyn/Labour. The Guardian speculate that they've deliberately done this ad to have the BBC complain about it - and therefore have it given free airtime. So you'd want it under your name then. Very cynical, but I can see how it would be effective, particularly in a polarised election where it is hard for voters who are mostly on your side to vote for someone else. If they don't like it they don't have much choice but to still vote for you because the alternative is Corbyn.
BBC complains to Tories over Facebook advert https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50595930 What the Tories haven't learned is you don't do it yourself, you get an offshoot organization to do it e.g. Labour / Maomentum.
Also £2,200 at this stage of the campaign, that literally nothing. I presumed they were flooding Facebook with ads like these morning, noon and night.
My experience of facebook was that they were flooding facebook with ads from fake grassroots organisations that had been set up on October 29th - "Parents4Education", "UK4Economy", etc, to run attack ads against Corbyn/Labour. The Guardian speculate that they've deliberately done this ad to have the BBC complain about it - and therefore have it given free airtime. So you'd want it under your name then. Very cynical, but I can see how it would be effective, particularly in a polarised election where it is hard for voters who are mostly on your side to vote for someone else. If they don't like it they don't have much choice but to still vote for you because the alternative is Corbyn.
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main benefits we will lose if we cannot agree a FTA a with the EU.
That's the idea, but from the point of view of the side wanting to increase their access to another market, they want to prevent what they see as regulations in the target market that are unfair to producers.
Why then would a FTA agreement with the US increase costs. Surely tariffs would be removed and therefore prices lowered, and since we have NICE doing cost benefit analysis and approving drugs for NHS, we will not be paying higher prices for drugs. In fact since the NHS is a single organisation serving a market of 60m people surely there aren’t many bigger scale purchasers around who can guarantee continued use if the price is set at the right level. I understand the technical issue around patent extension which could increase costs long term but there is surely the counter argument that allowing pharma companies patent rights for slightly longer may mean that they are able to lower prices to a point where they can supply as they will be able to recover R&D costs over a longer period.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
In theory you could have a free trade deal that did what you say and simply gave the NHS more choices of suppliers. However, that's not what the US side want. They think that their drug companies are being exploited by countries like the UK that use regulations and monopsony power to buy drugs artificially cheaply. This is how the US pharmaceutical companies think the market should work and they usually get what they want - for example, Medicare is banned by US law from using its power to negotiate bulk discounts with drug producers. Trump explicitly says (and he's not entirely wrong) that he thinks foreign countries like Britain are getting a free ride on US drug companies, and that's something he wants to change.
Now, it would of course be possible for the British to refuse to give the US concessions that would raise drug prices and hope the US would still sign a deal. But it's not clear that the US would agree. Assuming they don't, the question is then which of the things Boris is promising he would give way on: Getting the deal, or avoiding screwing the NHS.
Others may be deflective (thinking Swinson, Sturgeon and Corbyn), but Gove, Hancock, Raab, Cleverly, and Johnson have been utterly deceitful, devoid of policy, spouting doublethink, lying, unintellectual, and (as Sturgeon rightly stated) dangerous. Johnson makes Corbyn seem principled and smart, and by comparison he is.
I've been watching Gove, Hancock and Johnson's interviews, contrasting with interviews with Sturgeon, Swinson, Berry and Price, and all the parties manifestos (sad perhaps, on many levels .
As a result, I must ask, how can any poster on this forum, or any reasonable person with a care for the future, possibly support or wish election of the current Conservatives into government?
I can't see a President Warren or President Sanders being too amenable to corporate lobbying.
I'm not sure what they'd think about this case - you've got governments like the UK using their power to get a better deal for sick people at the expense of corporations, which is the kind of thing they'd support, but the net effect is Americans paying more to subsidize foreigners, which they would definitely be against.
But regardless of what they think, even if they're actually up for a trade deal, it still has to go through Congress, and even if they can find a majority brave enough to pick a fight Big Pharma - as Obama wasn't - they probably want to do it over something that benefits Americans not foreigners.
That's the idea, but from the point of view of the side wanting to increase their access to another market, they want to prevent what they see as regulations in the target market that are unfair to producers.
Why then would a FTA agreement with the US increase costs. Surely tariffs would be removed and therefore prices lowered, and since we have NICE doing cost benefit analysis and approving drugs for NHS, we will not be paying higher prices for drugs. In fact since the NHS is a single organisation serving a market of 60m people surely there aren’t many bigger scale purchasers around who can guarantee continued use if the price is set at the right level. I understand the technical issue around patent extension which could increase costs long term but there is surely the counter argument that allowing pharma companies patent rights for slightly longer may mean that they are able to lower prices to a point where they can supply as they will be able to recover R&D costs over a longer period.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
In theory you could have a free trade deal that did what you say and simply gave the NHS more choices of suppliers. However, that's not what the US side want. They think that their drug companies are being exploited by countries like the UK that use regulations and monopsony power to buy drugs artificially cheaply. This is how the US pharmaceutical companies think the market should work and they usually get what they want - for example, Medicare is banned by US law from using its power to negotiate bulk discounts with drug producers. Trump explicitly says (and he's not entirely wrong) that he thinks foreign countries like Britain are getting a free ride on US drug companies, and that's something he wants to change.
Now, it would of course be possible for the British to refuse to give the US concessions that would raise drug prices and hope the US would still sign a deal. But it's not clear that the US would agree. Assuming they don't, the question is then which of the things Boris is promising he would give way on: Getting the deal, or avoiding screwing the NHS.
Thanks all for the comments. So basically when we are ‘selling out the NHS’ we are negotiating on patent law. Personally I can see both sides to that - we may be able to get access to more drugs if we are willing to give longer exclusivity through patent. I guess it depends on what this will cost the NHS as a whole.
With regard to Chlorinated Chicken, I went to America in the summer, and guess what we ate loads of chicken and didn’t get ill - i think the problem is it sounds bad.
Thanks all for the comments. So basically when we are ‘selling out the NHS’ we are negotiating on patent law. Personally I can see both sides to that - we may be able to get access to more drugs if we are willing to give longer exclusivity through patent. I guess it depends on what this will cost the NHS as a whole.
No, don't think it's just patent law - for instance, the US producers aren't happy with the way the NHS sets the prices it will pay, and they'd want it changed so that they get paid more, and potentially sell medicines that don't currently pass the NICE cost-benefit analysis.
PS. This isn't necessarily *entirely* negative for British patients; If the British government wants to sell a deal to their voters, the obvious move is to find some sympathetic patients who can't currently get the medicines they need, and promise to reform NICE so that they can...
As a result, I must ask, how can any poster on this forum, or any reasonable person with a care for the future, possibly support or wish election of the current Conservatives into government?
I don't know how old you are but I assume you're too young to remember the last socialist Labour government.
Labour will saddle our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with hundreds of billions of pounds of debt that they they will be forced to pay off through their taxes.
Just so the selfish among us can get their hands on as many 'freebies' as possible.
And by the way, there are many examples of electorates being seduced by these sorts of promises and it nearly always ends up the same way...it isn't even scaremongering theory.
So to answer your question; I consider myself a reasonable person who doesn't think it is right to grab as much as possible now and have it put on to the credit card of those who haven't even been born yet.
Yet many prefer to put more effort into Corbyn and Lab due to his/their (admittedly) poor handling of anti-Semitism. More effort than calling-out the prejudicial hate that Johnson directly espouses. It's easy to see why people feel the attacks are politically biased.
In the locals this year the LibDems made big gains from the Conservatives, so it's a mistake to count them out. Were it not for the fact that Norman Lamb is stepping down, I'd say LD hold. As it is, I think it's a narrow Conservative gain.
In the locals this year the LibDems made big gains from the Conservatives, so it's a mistake to count them out. Were it not for the fact that Norman Lamb is stepping down, I'd say LD hold. As it is, I think it's a narrow Conservative gain.
And a huge 41% (+30%) win for the Greens in Wallington (Oxfordshire) adding to their 5 seats on the County Council...
In the locals this year the LibDems made big gains from the Conservatives, so it's a mistake to count them out. Were it not for the fact that Norman Lamb is stepping down, I'd say LD hold. As it is, I think it's a narrow Conservative gain.
Just to put the 2019 North Norfolk council results into context, the Conservatives went from 21 seats to 6, all of which were gained by the LDs. So, it's like this. In the Conservatives favour: - no Norman Lamb personal vote - it's a Brexity seat In the LDs favour: - great local election results this year - nationally they'll be up 5-8 points on their 2017 performance, while the Conservatives will be flat That screams close to me.
"We've seen it coming," one told BuzzFeed News. "The party have an attack strategy, 300 volunteers in Bolton West, which we're looking to lose badly anyway; zero in Leigh," one local activist told BuzzFeed News.
In the locals this year the LibDems made big gains from the Conservatives, so it's a mistake to count them out. Were it not for the fact that Norman Lamb is stepping down, I'd say LD hold. As it is, I think it's a narrow Conservative gain.
Just to put the 2019 North Norfolk council results into context, the Conservatives went from 21 seats to 6, all of which were gained by the LDs. So, it's like this. In the Conservatives favour: - no Norman Lamb personal vote - it's a Brexity seat In the LDs favour: - great local election results this year - nationally they'll be up 5-8 points on their 2017 performance, while the Conservatives will be flat That screams close to me.
Voting for a councillor who points at pot-holes does't put Jeremy Corbyn in power. It doesn't address Brexit.
Local and national parties have never felt further apart. I have no doubt many of the people I have been canvassing are Conservative this general election but LibDem for the locals. The stakes are so much higher for them this time. Reading across from European or local elections is a mugs game.
In the locals this year the LibDems made big gains from the Conservatives, so it's a mistake to count them out. Were it not for the fact that Norman Lamb is stepping down, I'd say LD hold. As it is, I think it's a narrow Conservative gain.
Just to put the 2019 North Norfolk council results into context, the Conservatives went from 21 seats to 6, all of which were gained by the LDs. So, it's like this. In the Conservatives favour: - no Norman Lamb personal vote - it's a Brexity seat In the LDs favour: - great local election results this year - nationally they'll be up 5-8 points on their 2017 performance, while the Conservatives will be flat That screams close to me.
Voting for a councillor who points at pot-holes does't put Jeremy Corbyn in power. It doesn't address Brexit.
Local and national parties have never felt further apart. I have no doubt many of the people I have been canvassing are Conservative this general election but LibDem for the locals. The stakes are so much higher for them this time. Reading across from European or local elections is a mugs game.
That's part of the equation. The Alliance won Richmond Upon Thames council, but never won the constituency until much later as the LDs. And back in 2015 the LDs won Eastliegh council on the same day that they lost the parliamentary seat.
But local elections also point to local strength on the ground. It means the LDs probably have more canvassers and leafleters and better records of support.
As I said, I expect a Conservative win. But I don't think it'll be a big win.
Tories threatening Channel 4, quite extraordinary and chilling. We urgently need some kind of non partisan commission to take charge of debates.
Channel 4 taking a political view against the Tories in an election campaign. Illegal.
Hardly. For one thing, they meted out the same to the Brexit party. No doubt if Corbyn or Sturgeon hadn't showed up, they'd have done the same.
But more worrying is that media freedom is at risk under the Tories. They're obviously quite happy to use threats. We just have to hope that they're lying.
Tories threatening Channel 4, quite extraordinary and chilling. We urgently need some kind of non partisan commission to take charge of debates.
Channel 4 taking a political view against the Tories in an election campaign. Illegal.
They held a leader’s debate to which the Conservatives opted not to send a leader. Others did.
The Conservatives don’t get to set the terms of debate. And when they make themselves look stupid, threatening to silence those who broadcast that is a fresh sign of their anti-democratic impulses.
Not that that is surprising. It’s all of a piece with a party that tried to suspend democracy to impose a policy that no one had voted for.
With regard to Chlorinated Chicken, I went to America in the summer, and guess what we ate loads of chicken and didn’t get ill - i think the problem is it sounds bad.
The point of chlorinating the chicken is so that you don't get ill. Due to the conditions that the birds live in the chances of salmonella or other bacterial infection is much higher in the US than in the UK, so they basically disinfect the meat.
With regard to Chlorinated Chicken, I went to America in the summer, and guess what we ate loads of chicken and didn’t get ill - i think the problem is it sounds bad.
I’ve not been able to post much over the last few days. I am perplexed by the NHS for sale story and wondered if anyone can point out what I am missing.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main bNHS NHS NHS
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
The US, under lobbying pressure from their pharmaceutical sector, would want us to introduce different rules so that we would pay higher prices for drugs. The most obvious example is to extend the lifetime of patents. This would mean paying higher prices for drugs under patent, instead of buying cheaper generics. There are some other, more obscure regulation changes that they are after that would also have the result of increasing what we pay for drugs. If you think about, there are broad analogues with some of the EU agriculture regulations, which have the effect of driving up prices for some foods and purposefully so - eg with the rules of geographical designation, such as with champagne, feta, etc. Now, if we want to reach a trade deal with the US then they will want something from us in return for what we want, and two of the biggest items on their list appear to be higher prices for drugs and lower food standards to allow access to US agricultural goods. Given how much US pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying you would expect they would pressure US politicians not to agree, or pass, a trade deal with us that did not give them some of what they want. One of the weird things about the US is the way in which companies use the law as a way to drive out competition, and so you sometimes find that US consumers are paying a lot more for some things than European consumers, contrary to a simplistic view of the US as a purer form of capitalism. Drug prices are one example, I think telecommunications are another.
You should have just said - Don't forget about the chlorinated chicken.
The story I heard from the TV, RE: Drug prices, is that apparently NICE is currently a price setter (which no economic theory of reasonable repute would be able to comprehend), and for some, so far unknown, reason would be, with a FTA, a price taker.
NICE is a buyer. The competition is there, deciding what price they are prepared to pay is based on the the effectiveness of the product the number of patients who will benefit and for how long and so a cancer drug has to compete with drugs to treat auto immune diseses etc.
If you think that a public boody trying to get the best price for their clients is uneconomic price setting, then you effectively are saying you disagree with the public sector completely.
Channel 4 "news" is an organisation with a stark anti-Conservative Party political agenda set by its production and presentation team. Its Head of News, Dorothy Byrne, has not exactly made efforts to hide that bias. The Conservatives have to suck that up outside a general election. In a general election - not. So says the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Reminding Channel 4 of its legal obligation is hardly a "use of threats". It is asking for the law to be upheld.
Channel 4 "news" is an organisation with a stark anti-Conservative Party political agenda set by its production and presentation team. Its Head of News, Dorothy Byrne, has not exactly made efforts to hide that bias. The Conservatives have to suck that up outside a general election. In a general election - not. So says the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Reminding Channel 4 of its legal obligation is hardly a "use of threats". It is asking for the law to be upheld.
Voting for a councillor who points at pot-holes does't put Jeremy Corbyn in power. It doesn't address Brexit.
Local and national parties have never felt further apart. I have no doubt many of the people I have been canvassing are Conservative this general election but LibDem for the locals. The stakes are so much higher for them this time. Reading across from European or local elections is a mugs game.
That's part of the equation. The Alliance won Richmond Upon Thames council, but never won the constituency until much later as the LDs. And back in 2015 the LDs won Eastliegh council on the same day that they lost the parliamentary seat.
But local elections also point to local strength on the ground. It means the LDs probably have more canvassers and leafleters and better records of support.
As I said, I expect a Conservative win. But I don't think it'll be a big win.
This sounds about right. The district of North Norfolk, which covers most of the same area as the parliamentary constituency, voted 59:41 to Leave. I understand that the constituency also has the oldest average population, or at least one of the oldest, of any in the country.
It's one of those old-style Liberal constituencies (like the Isle of Ely back in the 70s and 80s) that's out on its own, reliant on a dedicated activist base and the personal vote of the local MP (which I am confident that Norman Lamb, who is also a Brexit pragmatist and critic of the Revoke policy, possessed.) Lamb has now retired and I think that the demographics favour the Tories strongly enough to see them home in this seat.
As far as the Lib Dems' position on the district council is concerned, I'd imagine that most of us can come up with examples of where local government representation and Parliamentary representation don't stack up. The district council in my part of the world is now run by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, but the Conservative MPs representing the area still have five-figure majorities.
The Lib Dems will doubtless give it a good go, but I consider it unlikely that they'll hold on.
Might you really briefly explain the pensions issue for me please, Foxy?
This applies to all pensioners, but is particularly acute for senior NHS staff, and I was hit in tax year 17-18. The problem can be quite technical, but is due to the intersection of the NHS pension schemes (there are 3: the 1995, 2008 and 2015 schemes with different accrual rates) and the withdrawal of the annual tax free pensions allowance. As well as salary, and any private income, pension growth counts as income for calculating income for pensions allowance. Above £110 000 (inc pension growth) the pensions allowance is tapered until only £10 000 remains. As the 1995 scheme is final salary, pensions growth can be quite lumpy, and that is what stung me in 17-18. The outcome is that when the pensions taper hits, the marginal tax rate is close to 100%, and can be greater than that. There is a particular problem with the tax bill being on pension growth so paying tax on money that cannot be accessed. Several colleagues have had to remortgage to pay. There are two more tax cycles to go through before anything can be done. As a result, Consultants are refusing extra overtime (particularly a problem with extra operating lists and covering rota gaps in ITU and Emergency Dept) when this is not a part of contract. Also there is a powerful incentive to retire early, and to drop non clinical sessions such as management roles, and no one applies for CEA awards any more. I am well paid for what I do in a shortage speciality, but am not willing or able to pay 100% tax, so have stopped taking income from private sources for example, and leaving it to accumulate in my company, and stopped doing additional locums to cover gaps or waiting list initiatives 2 years ago.
NICE has a maximum price implicitly linked to the productivity of the NHS which is about 30k per QALY. A new drug might instead cost 60k per QALY. NICE say no, eventually a deal is made whereby pharma reduce price. They permit this because it does not alter the world price as it is done in secrecy. Trump wants transparency in pricing, destroying that.
Might you really briefly explain the pensions issue for me please, Foxy?
This applies to all pensioners, but is particularly acute for senior NHS staff, and I was hit in tax year 17-18. ... The outcome is that when the pensions taper hits, the marginal tax rate is close to 100%, and can be greater than that. There is a particular problem with the tax bill being on pension growth so paying tax on money that cannot be accessed. Several colleagues have had to remortgage to pay. There are two more tax cycles to go through before anything can be done. As a result, Consultants are refusing extra overtime (particularly a problem with extra operating lists and covering rota gaps in ITU and Emergency Dept) when this is not a part of contract. Also there is a powerful incentive to retire early, and to drop non clinical sessions such as management roles, and no one applies for CEA awards any more.ago.
Yes, my wife is a consultant psychiatrist and has done a number of locums that she has not claimed for as she would be out of pocket for doing so.
With regard to Chlorinated Chicken, I went to America in the summer, and guess what we ate loads of chicken and didn’t get ill - i think the problem is it sounds bad.
The point of chlorinating the chicken is so that you don't get ill. Due to the conditions that the birds live in the chances of salmonella or other bacterial infection is much higher in the US than in the UK, so they basically disinfect the meat.
Drinking chlorinated water in the UK is OK, but eating chickens imported from the US that have been washed with chlorine is not OK.
Also OK to also eat fruit & vegetables imported from the Netherlands which has been subjected to Gamma radiation.
I am a reliable private lender and Investor, Do you need a legit, honest, reputable and quick loan? I can help you with 100% guarantee loan, I am offering business and individual loan, More also we financing all kind of projects. For more details contact us Via Email:(raymondquickloan@gmail.com) Phone number:+1(213)600-4547
Comments
Regardless of partisan politics I'm sure you'd agree improving retention would be a good thing wouldn't you?
What *did* make life easier back then* was a well-equipped local authority advisory service which would have told you long before Ofsted arrived if you were a bit shit. That support has in large part gone now which I think is to be regretted.
(* I make it sound like it was 1986. It was actually about 5 years ago)
Apart from that.. a lot of Ofsteds are ten years old now.. so I'd check the sell-by date on it, and look up whether the head and key staff are the same.
I voted for Lamb over Farron, and Davey over Swinson (see header by me here in June), but Jo is doing alright. Haters gonna hate, and politics is a rough business.
I can't find the changes in the seat totals predicted by the MRP last time, as the election approached, but the national vote shares from it were pretty static, even as the normal polls had Labour closing the gap.
I wonder whether there is something different about the MRP approach that manages to crystallise the voting decision for poll respondents in advance of polling day?
I think that, were Labour to close the gap in the MRP between now and polling day that would be quite different to what happened in 2017. I don't think the YouGov MRP ever predicted a Conservative majority for the 2017GE. Labour and/or the Lib Dems have a hell of a job of work to do to turn this around.
I agree with you about Swinson. I worried before the campaign (on the basis of a couple of big podium speeches) that she'd come across as a bit shouty and angry. But I think she's softened her tone and does far better in something like the QT format last week. But I'm also realistic enough to know mine is a minority view. I'd still be sweating if I was a marginal towny southern Tory though.
Ouch
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/11/open-letter-sir-richard-evans-labour-s-anti-semitism-cannot-be-disregarded
Layla, Luciana and Chukka are the media stars for me, but only one of them might be an MP at Xmas. I think North Norfolk or Hallam might have been a better bet for Chukka. Luciana seems to be in Finchley for obvious reasons but its still a stretch to win. I do like Ed Davey for his intellect but he is pale stale and male.
I feel sorry for Jo but she does look a bit out of her depth, despite having a decent amount of experience.
Disappointing strategy, leadership and performance. Look better on paper than in action.
I thought the purpose of free trades areas and agreements was to enable increased market access and to remove / reduce tariffs. This is one of the main benefits we will lose if we cannot agree a FTA a with the EU.
Why then would a FTA agreement with the US increase costs. Surely tariffs would be removed and therefore prices lowered, and since we have NICE doing cost benefit analysis and approving drugs for NHS, we will not be paying higher prices for drugs. In fact since the NHS is a single organisation serving a market of 60m people surely there aren’t many bigger scale purchasers around who can guarantee continued use if the price is set at the right level. I understand the technical issue around patent extension which could increase costs long term but there is surely the counter argument that allowing pharma companies patent rights for slightly longer may mean that they are able to lower prices to a point where they can supply as they will be able to recover R&D costs over a longer period.
As you can see I don’t understand how prices will significantly be going up? Can anyone explain?
The most obvious example is to extend the lifetime of patents. This would mean paying higher prices for drugs under patent, instead of buying cheaper generics.
There are some other, more obscure regulation changes that they are after that would also have the result of increasing what we pay for drugs.
If you think about, there are broad analogues with some of the EU agriculture regulations, which have the effect of driving up prices for some foods and purposefully so - eg with the rules of geographical designation, such as with champagne, feta, etc.
Now, if we want to reach a trade deal with the US then they will want something from us in return for what we want, and two of the biggest items on their list appear to be higher prices for drugs and lower food standards to allow access to US agricultural goods.
Given how much US pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying you would expect they would pressure US politicians not to agree, or pass, a trade deal with us that did not give them some of what they want.
One of the weird things about the US is the way in which companies use the law as a way to drive out competition, and so you sometimes find that US consumers are paying a lot more for some things than European consumers, contrary to a simplistic view of the US as a purer form of capitalism. Drug prices are one example, I think telecommunications are another.
The story I heard from the TV, RE: Drug prices, is that apparently NICE is currently a price setter (which no economic theory of reasonable repute would be able to comprehend), and for some, so far unknown, reason would be, with a FTA, a price taker.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50595930
What the Tories haven't learned is you don't do it yourself, you get an offshoot organization to do it e.g. Labour / Maomentum.
Also £2,200 at this stage of the campaign, that literally nothing. I presumed they were flooding Facebook with ads like these morning, noon and night.
Green Party's Siân Berry swept the floor with the platitudes from Sturgeon, Corbyn, Price, and Swinson; though they made good points individually - from Green policies. But not enough legislative change or money. Only from the Greens, Siân laid bare that the words didn't translate into anything as did presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
Our political system doesn't permit serious change until it's too late it seems. I hope I'm wrong.
What this debate demonstrated with great clarity was how important the Green vote (plus scientists, Extinction Rebellion, and the activist movement) is in pressurising and motivating the other parties. Fearfully the politicial lip service isn't (yet) enough though.
The others talked the right talk, but when push comes to shove with actual changes and laws to retrofitting homes, stopping oil and gas, changing boilers, stopping flying - they daren't take any serious move. Scared of investing money (rather spend in on Waspi however rightful or not?), scared of voters kickback, scared of farmers (Plaid), scared of fishers (SNP), Unions (Lab), tax-payers, and drivers.
They were all fluent, but Corbyn particularly so (less than Berry); compare that to Gove and Johnson.
Johnson (and Farage, but not worth mentioning) and Gove are lying, duplicitous and vacuous. At least the panellists present could discuss. Johnson hasn't demonstrated that he would comprehend (or really care) what they were talking about.
The Guardian speculate that they've deliberately done this ad to have the BBC complain about it - and therefore have it given free airtime. So you'd want it under your name then.
Very cynical, but I can see how it would be effective, particularly in a polarised election where it is hard for voters who are mostly on your side to vote for someone else. If they don't like it they don't have much choice but to still vote for you because the alternative is Corbyn.
Now, it would of course be possible for the British to refuse to give the US concessions that would raise drug prices and hope the US would still sign a deal. But it's not clear that the US would agree. Assuming they don't, the question is then which of the things Boris is promising he would give way on: Getting the deal, or avoiding screwing the NHS.
I've been watching Gove, Hancock and Johnson's interviews, contrasting with interviews with Sturgeon, Swinson, Berry and Price, and all the parties manifestos (sad perhaps, on many levels
As a result, I must ask, how can any poster on this forum, or any reasonable person with a care for the future, possibly support or wish election of the current Conservatives into government?
But regardless of what they think, even if they're actually up for a trade deal, it still has to go through Congress, and even if they can find a majority brave enough to pick a fight Big Pharma - as Obama wasn't - they probably want to do it over something that benefits Americans not foreigners.
With regard to Chlorinated Chicken, I went to America in the summer, and guess what we ate loads of chicken and didn’t get ill - i think the problem is it sounds bad.
PS. This isn't necessarily *entirely* negative for British patients; If the British government wants to sell a deal to their voters, the obvious move is to find some sympathetic patients who can't currently get the medicines they need, and promise to reform NICE so that they can...
Labour will saddle our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with hundreds of billions of pounds of debt that they they will be forced to pay off through their taxes.
Just so the selfish among us can get their hands on as many 'freebies' as possible.
And by the way, there are many examples of electorates being seduced by these sorts of promises and it nearly always ends up the same way...it isn't even scaremongering theory.
So to answer your question; I consider myself a reasonable person who doesn't think it is right to grab as much as possible now and have it put on to the credit card of those who haven't even been born yet.
You may think differently.
A little run-down of Johnson's direct racism, misogyny, homophobia, and class hate - unfit to be PM. (Whilst his own members and candidates have been anti-Semitic and racists have been allowed back into the party numerous times.)
Yet many prefer to put more effort into Corbyn and Lab due to his/their (admittedly) poor handling of anti-Semitism. More effort than calling-out the prejudicial hate that Johnson directly espouses. It's easy to see why people feel the attacks are politically biased.
So, it's like this.
In the Conservatives favour:
- no Norman Lamb personal vote
- it's a Brexity seat
In the LDs favour:
- great local election results this year
- nationally they'll be up 5-8 points on their 2017 performance, while the Conservatives will be flat
That screams close to me.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/labour-activists-marginal-seats
Local and national parties have never felt further apart. I have no doubt many of the people I have been canvassing are Conservative this general election but LibDem for the locals. The stakes are so much higher for them this time. Reading across from European or local elections is a mugs game.
But local elections also point to local strength on the ground. It means the LDs probably have more canvassers and leafleters and better records of support.
As I said, I expect a Conservative win. But I don't think it'll be a big win.
We urgently need some kind of non partisan commission to take charge of debates.
But more worrying is that media freedom is at risk under the Tories. They're obviously quite happy to use threats. We just have to hope that they're lying.
The Conservatives don’t get to set the terms of debate. And when they make themselves look stupid, threatening to silence those who broadcast that is a fresh sign of their anti-democratic impulses.
Not that that is surprising. It’s all of a piece with a party that tried to suspend democracy to impose a policy that no one had voted for.
In the US, and according to the CDC there are about 1.4m salmonella infections per year, 19,000 people are hospitalised and 420 people die.
In the EU (which has a roughly similar population), there are fewer than 0.1m infections per year and perhaps a dozen people die.
I live in the US. I eat chicken. I have never been sick.
But I also support the right of the British parliament to make food safety rules.
If you think that a public boody trying to get the best price for their clients is uneconomic price setting, then you effectively are saying you disagree with the public sector completely.
It's one of those old-style Liberal constituencies (like the Isle of Ely back in the 70s and 80s) that's out on its own, reliant on a dedicated activist base and the personal vote of the local MP (which I am confident that Norman Lamb, who is also a Brexit pragmatist and critic of the Revoke policy, possessed.) Lamb has now retired and I think that the demographics favour the Tories strongly enough to see them home in this seat.
As far as the Lib Dems' position on the district council is concerned, I'd imagine that most of us can come up with examples of where local government representation and Parliamentary representation don't stack up. The district council in my part of the world is now run by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, but the Conservative MPs representing the area still have five-figure majorities.
The Lib Dems will doubtless give it a good go, but I consider it unlikely that they'll hold on.
As well as salary, and any private income, pension growth counts as income for calculating income for pensions allowance. Above £110 000 (inc pension growth) the pensions allowance is tapered until only £10 000 remains. As the 1995 scheme is final salary, pensions growth can be quite lumpy, and that is what stung me in 17-18.
The outcome is that when the pensions taper hits, the marginal tax rate is close to 100%, and can be greater than that. There is a particular problem with the tax bill being on pension growth so paying tax on money that cannot be accessed. Several colleagues have had to remortgage to pay. There are two more tax cycles to go through before anything can be done.
As a result, Consultants are refusing extra overtime (particularly a problem with extra operating lists and covering rota gaps in ITU and Emergency Dept) when this is not a part of contract.
Also there is a powerful incentive to retire early, and to drop non clinical sessions such as management roles, and no one applies for CEA awards any more.
I am well paid for what I do in a shortage speciality, but am not willing or able to pay 100% tax, so have stopped taking income from private sources for example, and leaving it to accumulate in my company, and stopped doing additional locums to cover gaps or waiting list initiatives 2 years ago.
Also OK to also eat fruit & vegetables imported from the Netherlands which has been subjected to Gamma radiation.
Best Regards
Mr Raymond Johnson.