Channel 4 News headlining today on the fact that 17 women have died in British prisons so far this year. That's quite a shocking number.
There are about 4000 women in prison at any one time, which means the mortality rate is 0.425%. The overall mortality rate of women in the UK is 0.467%.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
Brilliant.
Except that the figure given certainly isn't the all-ages female mortality rate, which is close to 1% as I estimated below. Of course old people comprise a large proportion of deaths in any year, so the figure given may be for an age-range subset. It isn't clear.
Since age and mortality rate are so closely related, to make a fair comparison you would need to take the age distribution of female prisoners and then model the expected mortality rate using the same distribution of ages and the ONS female UK mortality data.
But the prison population may not be representative. Many will have had preexisting drug and mental issues (this applies to male prisoners as well).
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
Josias, I once sent someone a spreadsheet, only for them to complain that the text was too small.
I opened it up, zoomed in, saved it and sent it back....
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
Yet the proposal from some MPs to do this in (for Labour) no-hope Richmond Park has, I believe, today been vetoed?
Sadly, you are right.....But at least it was discussed and the genie is out the bottle. It is as far out of the bottle than it has ever been.
And maybe in a year or so we may well have a Clive Lewis leading the Labour party who is the proposals biggest advocate....
In practice a tacit alliance between Labour and LD was a large part of the '97 victory. Over recent decades when one of this pairing has made gains (or losses) the other one has too. Their fates are coupled. I don't think it needs to be explicit, but a rapproachement between LD and Labour will be a big enough hint.
BTW: thought you might enjoy this about the worlds fastest growing language. English will be obsolete soon :-)
Channel 4 News headlining today on the fact that 17 women have died in British prisons so far this year. That's quite a shocking number.
There are about 4000 women in prison at any one time, which means the mortality rate is 0.425%. The overall mortality rate of women in the UK is 0.467%.
So generally women are less likely to die in prison than out.
(OK the sample populations are different, but you can prove anything with statistics and opinion polls).
Brilliant.
Except that the figure given certainly isn't the all-ages female mortality rate, which is close to 1% as I estimated below. Of course old people comprise a large proportion of deaths in any year, so the figure given may be for an age-range subset. It isn't clear.
Since age and mortality rate are so closely related, to make a fair comparison you would need to take the age distribution of female prisoners and then model the expected mortality rate using the same distribution of ages and the ONS female UK mortality data.
But the prison population may not be representative. Many will have had preexisting drug and mental issues (this applies to male prisoners as well).
Of course, but isn't that the point? Stage one is to compare the inmate rate with the general population. Stage two would be to consider what factors would account for any difference.
To do this properly, you must first remove any bias from different age distributions.
On topic, The Labour NEC will be standing a Candidate in RP whether the local CLP wants to or not, according to Labour List.
In the Richmond by-election we are going to see Conservative and Labour REMAIN supporters campaigning for the LIB DEMS.
Whilst Con and Lab LEAVE supporters will campaign for an Independent Zac.
Everything is becoming issues driven rather than party ideology driven. Makes it hard to operate political parties.
The left right divide is obsolete - the new division is between open and closed. (Hat tip The Economist).
I would much rather have a drink with TSE, Felix and ScottP than the likes of SandyRentool, Speedy and RochdalePioneers - who are seemingly willing to tolerate any amount of nasty anti-immigrant bigotry to wallow in their fantasies of a nativist 1960s socialist utopia.
Agree that current political parties are not fit for purpose. Both Tories and Labour have the full range from fruitcakes to pragmatists and as a liberal lefty I'd happily vote for a Soubry, Green or Clarke but never for either extreme of an Abbott or a Cash. It's not clear what parties really stand for any more, or indeed what the PM actually stands for. And yet tribal tories like Nabavi and Carlotta rapidly assume the new leaderships position, wherever it leads them. These are strange times.
Or, use tech to replace them. I was surprised during a recent stay in hospital how technology isn't used.
I understand the risks; but also understand human fallibility.
I was having a bit of a moan about that on here just this morning. They way the NHS operates is very dated.
Okay, I'll give my experience. I was on three drips. One went through a very bulky machine that was on a stand - I think it was saline (*). It was measured by the machine, drop by drop. One of the others - I can't recall what it was - required regular dosages, which was done by a nurse coming in every so often. The other just dripped.
I was surprised that this bulky machine could only measure *one* drip at a time, and the other important one was so manually intensive. Surely a machine could be made to regulate more than one at once?
I asked a nurse, and he said that they had had another type a while before, but they had been too costly.
Measuring the amount of liquid - and metricising and recording it - is hardly a complex task. I could probably create one with a Raspberry Pi and breadboard. And no, that wouldn't be compliant with medical standards.
This was just one thing I noted. Yet when I needed a nurse as the cannula had slipped out and was pumping into my arm tissue, there wasn't one available ...
(*) From probably flawed memory fr obvious reasons, nearly a litre an hour. Which is heck of a lot of liquid to take on when you're just lying in bed.
An area that could be improved if there were more managers, but apparently the NHS is stuffed full of pen-pushers like myself who just hold back the angelic nurses and doctors
I'm all for managers, but only *good* ones. I daresay you're an angelic one.
It was just the most glaring thing I noticed whilst there. Mind you, I was on a rather large dosage of opiates at the time. :0
Sometimes I think medicine uses the "we need to be sure it's safe" as a reason not to innovate. You can innovate and be safe; especially in non-drug areas where there can be redundant secondary systems until you have enough data to ensure it's safe.
Josias, I once sent someone a spreadsheet, only for them to complain that the text was too small.
I opened it up, zoomed in, saved it and sent it back....
I knew a software project manager who was an Excel High Priest. Instead of using MS Project, he would use Excel. He would manage projects brilliantly, perhaps because no-one except him could understand the plan ...
To be honest, I'd choose excel over MS project anyday...
True words indeed, though it is depressing as hell that people pretend coherent 'left' and 'right' ideologies to defend tribal positioning, when there should be far less shame in acknowledging leaping all over the traditional spectrum, which has a rich old tradition. I'll say this for UKIP, often they do at least admit to trying to select from the best of both, which recognises reality more.
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Is it? There's legislation on the expenditure allowed on it, on banning it from TV and I believe on declaring who funded it. That's off the top of my head.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
I have the "Gazette" in front of me now.
The banner is actually a sort of UKIP purple but not quite. It's definitely not a Tory blue.
It's very similar, - in fact identical, to the actual Gazette purple, which is a sort of Quink Royal Blue.
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
I never think it is wise to encourage and train your voters to support an alternative party. Once the lemming instinct of voting for the party regardless of all other facts the emotional bond between the party and voter is fractured and they will not return as such a loyal and frequent voter. The thrill of cheating on the political party of their past will be too much to resist.
Do you think if Labour or LibDems had politicians of stature, charisma and appeal who articulated well thought out popular progressive policies that they would win without PR?
It is the product on offer that is at fault more than the voting system. i think you are treating secondary symptoms and having blindness as to the causes.
At the next election I will be just as worried for our country by a Labour led by Corbyn majority or a Tory one led by May. Both appear to play more to the sectional prejudices of their voting memberships which are becoming more ideological and polarised by the day. Both the Tory and Labour membership have little regard for the interests of the country. They place ideology first.
So, in the absence of a Blair, or Cameron or Brown, or Major...PM's who on the whole acted against their membership wishes or desires, what hope is there with politicians like May or Corbyn who play to the lowest common denominator?
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
Yet the proposal from some MPs to do this in (for Labour) no-hope Richmond Park has, I believe, today been vetoed?
Sadly, you are right.....But at least it was discussed and the genie is out the bottle. It is as far out of the bottle than it has ever been.
And maybe in a year or so we may well have a Clive Lewis leading the Labour party who is the proposals biggest advocate....
In Richmond the case is, however, particularly strong since the Conservative Party isn't (planning to) field a candidate, specifically to give the Independent a leg up to defeat the LibDems. So they can hardly make a fuss if other parties chose to do similarly in order to defeat Zak.
It may well be that your nurse was checking that you were still breathing when dropping by regularly to adjust the syringe pump dosage. Sometimes requiring a human operator is a feature not a bug.
A litre of saline in an hour is rather a lot. It needs a big cannula and a wide open tap.
It was a lot. I don;t even drink that much when backpacking over mountains in summer, which was one reason I was so alarmed. I was sweating so much that the need to pee was somewhat reduced, and what came out was golden (cue too much information)
Generally I agree with your first sentence. But with modern tech, there is no reason why a *person* needs to check you're still breathing. Creating fail-safe (*) tech isn't too out of this world.
In addition: if they're there to check you're still breathing, how come they're not checking up on you every four minutes?
In fact, there's no reason why a IoT (**) plaster cannot be slapped on a patient on admittance, which wirelessly records their metrics, even as they are wheeled between departments.
(*) Fail-safe is vastly important. (**) A phrase I hate.
The health economics of expensive biological drugs are quite complex. So for example the monoclonal antibodies used as disease modifying agents for rheumatoid have (expensively) transformed a crippling deforming disease into one that allows someone to keep working. I just do not see the wrecked bodies that were all too common 25 years ago.
The cost of the drug (including the logistics and human cost of regular infusions and monitoring) vs the cost to the individual, family and society (particularly the impact on carers and social care) relies on a lot of assumptions and hidden costs, as well as hidden benefits.
My money saving wheeze for the NHS : compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages who wish UK residence. A little totalitarian perhaps, but would save a lot of misery as well as money.
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
Yet the proposal from some MPs to do this in (for Labour) no-hope Richmond Park has, I believe, today been vetoed?
Sadly, you are right.....But at least it was discussed and the genie is out the bottle. It is as far out of the bottle than it has ever been.
And maybe in a year or so we may well have a Clive Lewis leading the Labour party who is the proposals biggest advocate....
In practice a tacit alliance between Labour and LD was a large part of the '97 victory. Over recent decades when one of this pairing has made gains (or losses) the other one has too. Their fates are coupled. I don't think it needs to be explicit, but a rapproachement between LD and Labour will be a big enough hint.
BTW: thought you might enjoy this about the worlds fastest growing language. English will be obsolete soon :-)
Tactical voting is of course what you are talking about, but, nevertheless, it has been true for a long time that liberals (/alliance/LDs) do better when the Tories are unpopular than when Labour is, because of the way the third party vote is distributed with more good second places in Tory held seats than Labour ones.
The health economics of expensive biological drugs are quite complex. So for example the monoclonal antibodies used as disease modifying agents for rheumatoid have (expensively) transformed a crippling deforming disease into one that allows someone to keep working. I just do not see the wrecked bodies that were all too common 25 years ago.
The cost of the drug (including the logistics and human cost of regular infusions and monitoring) vs the cost to the individual, family and society (particularly the impact on carers and social care) relies on a lot of assumptions and hidden costs, as well as hidden benefits.
My money saving wheeze for the NHS : compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages who wish UK residence. A little totalitarian perhaps, but would save a lot of misery as well as money.
"compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages"
That's why I married a foreigner.
Though that may not have worked for the Saxe-Coburgs ...
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable that the European Parliament would vote down a UK/EU deal, agreed by the European nation states. They'd be voting for enormous turbulence, damage to both the EU and UK economies, all kinds of doom and disaster. They'd be held up as the culprits for the fall-out.
If a deal is thrashed out between the capitals, Strasbourg will have its say, but it will agree.
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
I heard that Belgium has six parliaments, and that three of them - the Walloon regional parliament, the Brussels regional parliament, and the community parliament for French speakers - had all objected to CETA. But perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick?
(Six parliaments?! If the UK had the same number of parliaments per head as Belgium, we would have about 35...)
As I said in a recent previous thread, the Belgians have six regional / communitarian authorities (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels / Flemish, French, German, but two of those (Flanders and the Flemish community) are merged, making five subsidiary assemblies. They all get a veto though, I believe.
If you read what he says underneath that, it's not the total bollocks that you might expect from Fox.
As with Davis, it sounds like the difficult reality of Brexit is dawning on him. Inevitably. This is a good thing.
It's an interesting piece. Though while the European Council votes on a QMV basis on the A50 deal the European Parliament needs to " Consent " giving it a straight veto.
We could have the sight of Farage et al attempting to veto a soft Brexit deal in the European Parliament? Perhaps on the same side as the Martin Schultz 'punishment gang'.
I'd not thought of that. May's end of March A50 deadline means it will be the current parliament that votes on it. So the UKIP group will still be there.
Almost inconceivable
If they do after the collapse of the EU-Canada deal I suggest the first trip May makes after Brexit is to Ottowa!
The story doing the rounds in finance-ville is that there is some face saving compromise that will enable the Waloons to vote for CETA.
I don't know what it is, or how credible it is, but it is the view of a very large US investment bank, so I'm sure it's at least accurate that there are talks ongoing.
Another regional Parliament in Belgium has also voted against, it would have to be a pretty far reaching compromise to get through
I heard that Belgium has six parliaments, and that three of them - the Walloon regional parliament, the Brussels regional parliament, and the community parliament for French speakers - had all objected to CETA. But perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick?
(Six parliaments?! If the UK had the same number of parliaments per head as Belgium, we would have about 35...)
As I said in a recent previous thread, the Belgians have six regional / communitarian authorities (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels / Flemish, French, German, but two of those (Flanders and the Flemish community) are merged, making five subsidiary assemblies. They all get a veto though, I believe.
Though from what I can see, our own parliament in Westminster has not debated CETA, let alone voted on its approval. What is it about parliamentary scrutiny that the government doesn't like?
There doesn't even seem to be a response to EDM 165 on the issue:
Amusing how some Conservatives on here think the Lib Dems delivering a newspaper style leaflet is outrageous . There are plenty of Conservative imitations about usually called Out Of Touch or similar .
The health economics of expensive biological drugs are quite complex. So for example the monoclonal antibodies used as disease modifying agents for rheumatoid have (expensively) transformed a crippling deforming disease into one that allows someone to keep working. I just do not see the wrecked bodies that were all too common 25 years ago.
The cost of the drug (including the logistics and human cost of regular infusions and monitoring) vs the cost to the individual, family and society (particularly the impact on carers and social care) relies on a lot of assumptions and hidden costs, as well as hidden benefits.
My money saving wheeze for the NHS : compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages who wish UK residence. A little totalitarian perhaps, but would save a lot of misery as well as money.
We have a beautiful little family home (my wife's side) in the remote Appenines. I mean remote...wolves, full on night sky, and lots of very, very, very closely related Italians living in the next village. And virtually every single family is blighted by congenital diseases.... not many of the children are left unscathed.
But you could add to your list extreme premature live births....not much gain for a considerable amount of pain.....
The health economics of expensive biological drugs are quite complex. So for example the monoclonal antibodies used as disease modifying agents for rheumatoid have (expensively) transformed a crippling deforming disease into one that allows someone to keep working. I just do not see the wrecked bodies that were all too common 25 years ago.
The cost of the drug (including the logistics and human cost of regular infusions and monitoring) vs the cost to the individual, family and society (particularly the impact on carers and social care) relies on a lot of assumptions and hidden costs, as well as hidden benefits.
My money saving wheeze for the NHS : compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages who wish UK residence. A little totalitarian perhaps, but would save a lot of misery as well as money.
We have a beautiful little family home (my wife's side) in the remote Appenines. I mean remote...wolves, full on night sky, and lots of very, very, very closely related Italians living in the next village. And virtually every single family is blighted by congenital diseases.... not many of the children are left unscathed.
But you could add to your list extreme premature live births....not much gain for a considerable amount of pain.....
Prems born before 25 weeks have all too often a pretty miserable fate.
On topic, The Labour NEC will be standing a Candidate in RP whether the local CLP wants to or not, according to Labour List.
In the Richmond by-election we are going to see Conservative and Labour REMAIN supporters campaigning for the LIB DEMS.
Whilst Con and Lab LEAVE supporters will campaign for an Independent Zac.
Everything is becoming issues driven rather than party ideology driven. Makes it hard to operate political parties.
The left right divide is obsolete - the new division is between open and closed. (Hat tip The Economist).
I would much rather have a drink with TSE, Felix and ScottP than the likes of SandyRentool, Speedy and RochdalePioneers - who are seemingly willing to tolerate any amount of nasty anti-immigrant bigotry to wallow in their fantasies of a nativist 1960s socialist utopia.
Agree that current political parties are not fit for purpose. Both Tories and Labour have the full range from fruitcakes to pragmatists and as a liberal lefty I'd happily vote for a Soubry, Green or Clarke but never for either extreme of an Abbott or a Cash. It's not clear what parties really stand for any more, or indeed what the PM actually stands for. And yet tribal tories like Nabavi and Carlotta rapidly assume the new leaderships position, wherever it leads them. These are strange times.
Carlotta yes, that has been pretty miserable to watch. Richard less so - has been deeply critical of May re: grammar schools.
Agree about Soubry, Green, Clarke, Abbott and Cash - great examples sir!
The health economics of expensive biological drugs are quite complex. So for example the monoclonal antibodies used as disease modifying agents for rheumatoid have (expensively) transformed a crippling deforming disease into one that allows someone to keep working. I just do not see the wrecked bodies that were all too common 25 years ago.
The cost of the drug (including the logistics and human cost of regular infusions and monitoring) vs the cost to the individual, family and society (particularly the impact on carers and social care) relies on a lot of assumptions and hidden costs, as well as hidden benefits.
My money saving wheeze for the NHS : compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages who wish UK residence. A little totalitarian perhaps, but would save a lot of misery as well as money.
One of my companies is developing a product tovrepkace biologicals in pouchitis
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
I never think it is wise to encourage and train your voters to support an alternative party. Once the lemming instinct of voting for the party regardless of all other facts the emotional bond between the party and voter is fractured and they will not return as such a loyal and frequent voter. The thrill of cheating on the political party of their past will be too much to resist.
Do you think if Labour or LibDems had politicians of stature, charisma and appeal who articulated well thought out popular progressive policies that they would win without PR?
It is the product on offer that is at fault more than the voting system. i think you are treating secondary symptoms and having blindness as to the causes.
At the next election I will be just as worried for our country by a Labour led by Corbyn majority or a Tory one led by May. Both appear to play more to the sectional prejudices of their voting memberships which are becoming more ideological and polarised by the day. Both the Tory and Labour membership have little regard for the interests of the country. They place ideology first.
So, in the absence of a Blair, or Cameron or Brown, or Major...PM's who on the whole acted against their membership wishes or desires, what hope is there with politicians like May or Corbyn who play to the lowest common denominator?
"We want to congratulate MP Zac Goldsmith on his decision to resign his seat in protest at the Heathrow decision.
Unlike many Conservatives he has kept his promise on Heathrow.
We agree with Zac on Heathrow.
But on Brexit and the future of the NHS, Conservatives like Zac are on the wrong side of the argument".
That almost brings a tear to my eye. Fake local newspapers in the opponent's colour scheme are a part of my Lib Dem patrimony I'll never forget.
And there was me thinking it's unethical to mislead voters.
unethical but perfectly legal - in fact you cannot complain about political advertising as it is explicitly excluded from all regulation...
Is it? There's legislation on the expenditure allowed on it, on banning it from TV and I believe on declaring who funded it. That's off the top of my head.
Completely immoral to print in your opponents colour.
I have the "Gazette" in front of me now.
The banner is actually a sort of UKIP purple but not quite. It's definitely not a Tory blue.
It's very similar, - in fact identical, to the actual Gazette purple, which is a sort of Quink Royal Blue.
So passing off then?
No - it's our Gazette. That's the actual Gazette. With its own purple banner.
This motion is being debated in my local Labour party branch, namely to support a progressive alliance to defeat the Tories, and then bring in PR. This is the text below:
-The Party that was in second place behind the Tories in the previous election in each constituency would contest the seat, and that Party alone would select the candidate, but all parties in the alliance would campaign for that candidate. -Members of the alliance will have to decide whether or not they will compete against each other in non-Tory seats, but the logic suggests they would not. -The sole aim of the alliance would be to form a majority in Parliament in order to change the voting system to a proportional one. Once achieved, members of the alliance would revert to their parties to fight the next election under a PR system. -It is currently suggested that the parties forming the alliance would comprise the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties.
I am 1000% behind the proposal
I don't like when they call such ideas 'Progressive Alliances'. It suggests to me they are all really on the same side, and cooperation of such a direct nature should be second nature, and is usually invoked on the assumption everyone is either a Tory or an anti-Tory, and as someone who has never voted Tory but leans more that way than Labour, that tells me they don't want my vote because I don't hate the Tories enough.
Can it not just be the PR Alliance? I know it is not as snappy, but it is much clearer this is just about securing one aim, a more democratic electoral system,
Yes frankly if you could get UKIP on board, they are big on PR, it might have a bit more sway as well as the public wouldn't just see it as a lefty rainbow coalition.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Do you not pay attention. It's increasing at approximately 13% per year. We are a medium sized Trust with no large specialisms such as oncology or haematology where the increase in even greater. This is a betting site people are supposed to be numerate
There there sweetheart. No need to throw for toys out of the pram.
yes cagrs are important. But if something doubles from 1% to 2% of costs it's less important than a 10% rise is one-Sutter of your cost base.
Are you entirely sober?
Charles makes pharmaceuticals so has both knowledge and bias.
Sorry to miss the NHS thread in the previous article. Everything Alistair says is true and it's no good the usual suspects on here saying all that the NHS needs is a dose of private sector efficiency. It perhaps needs more efficiency - but the private sector only adds inefficiencies - but it certainly needs more money.
My Trust's drugs bill has risen from £3.5m per year 20 years ago to £39m last year. That's a compound annual increase of 13% and it's only going to get worse with increasingly personalised and biological treatments.
What percentage of Trust spending is it?
8.7%. And we're one of the few Trusts in the black.
So not the top priority for cost control for all the heat it generates
Indeed, Major was PM for 7 years so the 200,000 his memoirs sold may be a more realistic target than, for example, the 500,000 Thatcher's sold and both Blair and Thatcher had higher name recognition in the US which helped them with sales there
Comments
BTW: thought you might enjoy this about the worlds fastest growing language. English will be obsolete soon :-)
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/06/emojis-shigetaka-kurita-mark-davis-coding-language
To do this properly, you must first remove any bias from different age distributions.
Both the Tory and Labour membership have little regard for the interests of the country. They place ideology first.
So, in the absence of a Blair, or Cameron or Brown, or Major...PM's who on the whole acted against their membership wishes or desires, what hope is there with politicians like May or Corbyn who play to the lowest common denominator?
Generally I agree with your first sentence. But with modern tech, there is no reason why a *person* needs to check you're still breathing. Creating fail-safe (*) tech isn't too out of this world.
In addition: if they're there to check you're still breathing, how come they're not checking up on you every four minutes?
In fact, there's no reason why a IoT (**) plaster cannot be slapped on a patient on admittance, which wirelessly records their metrics, even as they are wheeled between departments.
(*) Fail-safe is vastly important.
(**) A phrase I hate.
The cost of the drug (including the logistics and human cost of regular infusions and monitoring) vs the cost to the individual, family and society (particularly the impact on carers and social care) relies on a lot of assumptions and hidden costs, as well as hidden benefits.
My money saving wheeze for the NHS : compulsory sterilisation of all cousanguinous marriages who wish UK residence. A little totalitarian perhaps, but would save a lot of misery as well as money.
I love how the site has gone from a right wing meeting place to a lefty remain moaning house.
Loving it.
That's why I married a foreigner.
Though that may not have worked for the Saxe-Coburgs ...
NEW THREAD
There doesn't even seem to be a response to EDM 165 on the issue:
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/165
Oh to have a democracy like Belgium rather than our own pisspoor excuse!
But you could add to your list extreme premature live births....not much gain for a considerable amount of pain.....
Agree about Soubry, Green, Clarke, Abbott and Cash - great examples sir!
It was more the typos I was worried about.