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

I actually think Labour will try and make that policy. Which might annoy Bobajob even more!

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

That would be funny. Personally I think the claim was utterly dishonest but just imagine a situation in 2020 where the Chancellor stands up at the budget to announce a specific increase in NHS funding of £350m a week even if it hadn't come directly from the money saved by Brexit.

I think there will be a lot of mileage in proposing an annual £70m per week increase for five years, thereby satisfying the £350m claim, but letting inflation eat into around half the figure anyway.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

Max's idea was a £70mn a week increase each year for five years. £70mn x 5 = £350mn

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sandpit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Poor Boris

@bbclaurak: No 10 says Boris Johnson's comments on Saudi Arabia are 'not the government's position' - ouch

I image the PM wasn't too amused with those comments from Boris, sitting as she was at the GCC summit in Bahrain, agreeing to assist the Gulf states with security issues and unrest in Yemen and Iran.

http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/gcc-and-britain-announce-new-strategic-partnership

Unrest that is in no small part due to the Saudis.

There's still the need for a fair amount of Realpolitik in the region, and criticising a foreign government just before your boss goes to shake their hand isn't really the diplomacy expected of the foreign secretary!

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

That would be funny. Personally I think the claim was utterly dishonest but just imagine a situation in 2020 where the Chancellor stands up at the budget to announce a specific increase in NHS funding of £350m a week even if it hadn't come directly from the money saved by Brexit.

I think there will be a lot of mileage in proposing an annual £70m per week increase for five years, thereby satisfying the £350m claim, but letting inflation eat into around half the figure anyway.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

"10 days to save the NHS from crooked Tory cash"

MaxPB said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

That would be funny. Personally I think the claim was utterly dishonest but just imagine a situation in 2020 where the Chancellor stands up at the budget to announce a specific increase in NHS funding of £350m a week even if it hadn't come directly from the money saved by Brexit.

I think there will be a lot of mileage in proposing an annual £70m per week increase for five years, thereby satisfying the £350m claim, but letting inflation eat into around half the figure anyway.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

A £70m per week increase every year for 5 years, at the end of the spending period it will be £350m per year over the 2020 figure.

Okay, but it should reach the £350m/week at the same time as we exit the EU, so it would need to be done in 2 years from next March.

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

PlatoSaid said:

MattW said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The reason "Fake News" or more relevant "Alternative News" e.g. Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc has grown is because the MSM have been unwilling / uninterested to address stories surrounding issues of certain subjects will the wider public feel are important...then this opens the floor for others to put their spin on certain stories, be it the grooming gangs in Rochdale, Wikileaks emails, lets not forget the Climate-gate stuff, or more day to day concerns over things like immigration.

Given that "climate-gate" stuff was itself fake news - nobody was actually found to be guilty of any sort of malpractice - it is probably best forgotten.

The fake news identified in the NPR interview is from a registered democrat trolling the right, which he seems to treat as part of his motivation.

When I quip about the Guardian and fake news I am only joking slightly. The entire meme about soaring rents is largely fake news, based on nonrepresentative stats heavily distorted by using "averages" based on advertised new-to-market rents (different from those paid by existing tenants) and applying figures heavily distorted by a few ultra-high-cost areas in London, or London in the country as a whole.

The one that really concerns me is when fake news feeds into new laws. No shortage of examples of that either.

The Guardian and their fellow travellers shut down the NOTW. Then they retracted 37 articles that were the core of their entire smear campaign.

Who wants that media mob rule? I don't.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/20/corrections-and-clarifications

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/dec/12/corrections-and-clarifications

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/guardian-retraction-news-of-the-world-did-not-delete-murder-victims-voicemails/

News Corporation shut down the News of the World.

The key thing of course is that they didn't retract 37 stories. They amended 37 stories. The NOTW still actually hacked the voice mail of a murder victim.

Exactly. And suffered no consequences apart from having to do a bit of rebranding. We don't just have a free press. We have a get away with it scot free press.

logical_song said:

MaxPB said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

That would be funny. Personally I think the claim was utterly dishonest but just imagine a situation in 2020 where the Chancellor stands up at the budget to announce a specific increase in NHS funding of £350m a week even if it hadn't come directly from the money saved by Brexit.

I think there will be a lot of mileage in proposing an annual £70m per week increase for five years, thereby satisfying the £350m claim, but letting inflation eat into around half the figure anyway.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

A £70m per week increase every year for 5 years, at the end of the spending period it will be £350m per year over the 2020 figure.

Okay, but it should reach the £350m/week at the same time as we exit the EU, so it would need to be done in 2 years from next March.

Argue that they've honoured the promises already made to allow people to plan effectively so it will taken a few years for the full "Brexit dividend" to be available

RobD said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

McDonald’s Corp. says it will create a new holding company based in the U.K., where it will pay tax for most of the royalties it receives on fast food sales outside the U.S., Bloomberg News reports

The move comes after the EU launched a probe into the company's tax arrangements in Luxembourg in December 2015.

In an e-mailed statement, the company said it would create a new corporate structure in the new year, which will create a new U.K. unit “with responsibility for the majority of the royalties received from licensing the company’s global intellectual property rights outside the United States.”

The profits of this new holding company will pay U.K. corporation tax.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/mcdonald-s-says-tax-base-will-move-to-u-k-from-luxembourg-iwgc5sbe

Luxembourg-based McD Franchising Europe, which employs 14 people, reported turnover of $1bn and profits of $540.6m last year from royalty payments generated around the region.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/29/mcdonalds-uk-pays-123m-in-royalties-to-luxembourg/

Despite Brexit

If Ukip were smart-and the jury is out on that one- they would develop policies to make big corporations to pay their fair share of tax, no more loopholes, no more paying taxes if they feel like it just clamp down ffs it shouldn't be that hard there are plenty of imaginative ways to close loopholes without having business move abroad its just that the msp (main stream parties) are bought and paid for.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk

FY 16

National Health Care + £139 billion

Fiscal Year 2020

National Health Care + £153 billion

Diff = £14 Bn

^
|

350 * 52 = £18.2 Bn

So its only an extra £4.2 Bn...

MP_SE said:

Moses_ said:

In regard to the fake news discussion I was reminded earlier of the headline of the year put on the BBC website when a suicide bomber blew up a bar in Ansbach Germany reporting it as ....

'Syrian injured in German blast"

....and his name wasn't Dave with psychological issues either which was the standard line / mickey take that came later of course.

I remember the UKIP member who a paper claimed was making a nazi salute. As a result of this he was fired from his job, lost his home, bankrupted and his marriage broke down. Turns out he was just trying to block a friend taking a photo of him. I believe the paper in question settled out of court for destroying his life.

Surely his wife knew he wasn't a Nazi? And there are tribunals to combat unfair dismissal - which would be appropriate even if he actually were a Nazi since that isn't a crime.

Pulpstar said:

£18.2 Bn extra in 2020.

The NHS needs both reform, and more money.

NOT a bottomless pit - clear efficiency savings through technology can and should be made (NOT bottomless IT projects though), but ~ 1% extra of GDP at the minimum in real terms ASAP.
I think both perhaps a penny on tax and cuts in other areas should be made to fund it.

Anecdotal: Took ~ 2.5 hrs from arrival to discharge last time I visited A&E, I'd give my fiancee's issue was dealt with a 5/5 from the staff and system @ Chesterfield.

I think they need to create more competition in the drug/treatment market. The big drug companies are stifling cheaper treatments and therapies like good'uns, the whole thing is just a vast transfer of wealth from the UK taxpayer to the pharamceutical industry. Doctors and academic institutions are complicit. Rip off Britain, and we can't afford it any more.

They also need a system whereby the cash is paid to the hospital when the patient is treated, not just bestowed from the top. There needs to be choice and competition within the NHS, including private providers.

I think they should merge the Department of Health with the National Health Service, and call it all the National Health Service.

Bring back Matron - just call them Patrons if they're men.

And as we were discussing here earlier, they need more general recuperative homes to stop beds in accute wards being blocked. A case I know if recently was in a recovering in a ward for one thing, but had a host more highly serious (and obvious) issues that went totally unnoticed, meanwhile blocking that bed up from someone with the specific problem. Madness.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Pulpstar said:

£18.2 Bn extra in 2020.

The NHS needs both reform, and more money.

NOT a bottomless pit - clear efficiency savings through technology can and should be made (NOT bottomless IT projects though), but ~ 1% extra of GDP at the minimum in real terms ASAP.
I think both perhaps a penny on tax and cuts in other areas should be made to fund it.

Anecdotal: Took ~ 2.5 hrs from arrival to discharge last time I visited A&E, I'd give my fiancee's issue was dealt with a 5/5 from the staff and system @ Chesterfield.

I think they need to create more competition in the drug/treatment market. The big drug companies are stifling cheaper treatments and therapies like good'uns, the whole thing is just a vast transfer of wealth from the UK taxpayer to the pharamceutical industry. Doctors and academic institutions are complicit. Rip off Britain, and we can't afford it any more.

They also need a system whereby the cash is paid to the hospital when the patient is treated, not just bestowed from the top. There needs to be choice and competition within the NHS, including private providers.

I think they should merge the Department of Health with the National Health Service, and call it all the National Health Service.

Bring back Matron - just call them Patrons if they're men.

And as we were discussing here earlier, they need more general recuperative homes to stop beds in accute wards being blocked. A case I know if recently was in a recovering in a ward for one thing, but had a host more highly serious (and obvious) issues that went totally unnoticed, meanwhile blocking that bed up from someone with the specific problem. Madness.

For sure someone needs to look at drug pricing etc in the NHS - that a lone GP had to blow the whistle on Pfizer refelected poorly. The NHS is a big customer, it has more power than it realises sometimes.
They need to stick to British drugs from GSK

Recidivist said:

MP_SE said:

Moses_ said:

In regard to the fake news discussion I was reminded earlier of the headline of the year put on the BBC website when a suicide bomber blew up a bar in Ansbach Germany reporting it as ....

'Syrian injured in German blast"

....and his name wasn't Dave with psychological issues either which was the standard line / mickey take that came later of course.

I remember the UKIP member who a paper claimed was making a nazi salute. As a result of this he was fired from his job, lost his home, bankrupted and his marriage broke down. Turns out he was just trying to block a friend taking a photo of him. I believe the paper in question settled out of court for destroying his life.

Surely his wife knew he wasn't a Nazi? And there are tribunals to combat unfair dismissal - which would be appropriate even if he actually were a Nazi since that isn't a crime.

Presumably stress of losing job/house/press intrusion contributed to marriage breakdown, while firm could have sacked him for bringing the firm into disrepute.

Charles said:

Recidivist said:

MP_SE said:

Moses_ said:

In regard to the fake news discussion I was reminded earlier of the headline of the year put on the BBC website when a suicide bomber blew up a bar in Ansbach Germany reporting it as ....

'Syrian injured in German blast"

....and his name wasn't Dave with psychological issues either which was the standard line / mickey take that came later of course.

I remember the UKIP member who a paper claimed was making a nazi salute. As a result of this he was fired from his job, lost his home, bankrupted and his marriage broke down. Turns out he was just trying to block a friend taking a photo of him. I believe the paper in question settled out of court for destroying his life.

Surely his wife knew he wasn't a Nazi? And there are tribunals to combat unfair dismissal - which would be appropriate even if he actually were a Nazi since that isn't a crime.

Presumably stress of losing job/house/press intrusion contributed to marriage breakdown, while firm could have sacked him for bringing the firm into disrepute.

I'd want at least a million (Post tax) (& My life/Job is quite "ordinary") for that level of life wreckingness to be honest. I hope he got the payout he REALLY deserved.

Sky news just now - 'final day of celebrations at the Supreme Court' and corrected by deliberations.

Think that sublimal message says it all about Sky (EU) broadcasting

logical_song said:

Isn't the Foreign Secretary supposed to give the UK's view?

Only when he lies, not when he tells the truth.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

Recidivist said:

MP_SE said:

Moses_ said:

In regard to the fake news discussion I was reminded earlier of the headline of the year put on the BBC website when a suicide bomber blew up a bar in Ansbach Germany reporting it as ....

'Syrian injured in German blast"

....and his name wasn't Dave with psychological issues either which was the standard line / mickey take that came later of course.

I remember the UKIP member who a paper claimed was making a nazi salute. As a result of this he was fired from his job, lost his home, bankrupted and his marriage broke down. Turns out he was just trying to block a friend taking a photo of him. I believe the paper in question settled out of court for destroying his life.

Surely his wife knew he wasn't a Nazi? And there are tribunals to combat unfair dismissal - which would be appropriate even if he actually were a Nazi since that isn't a crime.

Presumably stress of losing job/house/press intrusion contributed to marriage breakdown, while firm could have sacked him for bringing the firm into disrepute.

I'd want at least a million (Post tax) (& My life/Job is quite "ordinary") for that level of life wreckingness to be honest. I hope he got the payout he REALLY deserved.

Hope he capped his lawyer's take...

Charles said:

with all the results (good and bad) publicly available

If only all the results were available.

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

Recidivist said:

MP_SE said:

Moses_ said:

In regard to the fake news discussion I was reminded earlier of the headline of the year put on the BBC website when a suicide bomber blew up a bar in Ansbach Germany reporting it as ....

'Syrian injured in German blast"

....and his name wasn't Dave with psychological issues either which was the standard line / mickey take that came later of course.

I remember the UKIP member who a paper claimed was making a nazi salute. As a result of this he was fired from his job, lost his home, bankrupted and his marriage broke down. Turns out he was just trying to block a friend taking a photo of him. I believe the paper in question settled out of court for destroying his life.

Surely his wife knew he wasn't a Nazi? And there are tribunals to combat unfair dismissal - which would be appropriate even if he actually were a Nazi since that isn't a crime.

Presumably stress of losing job/house/press intrusion contributed to marriage breakdown, while firm could have sacked him for bringing the firm into disrepute.

I'd want at least a million (Post tax) (& My life/Job is quite "ordinary") for that level of life wreckingness to be honest. I hope he got the payout he REALLY deserved.

Hope he capped his lawyer's take...

Well when you hear of celebs getting huge payouts for their phones being hacked when its had no noticeable effect on their career or life at all, you'd hope the man on the street would get MORE for a much much larger detriment.

glw said:

logical_song said:

Isn't the Foreign Secretary supposed to give the UK's view?

Only when he lies, not when he tells the truth.

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

I have a suggestion - replace him with George Osborne - well it is only a suggestion

Big_G_NorthWales said:

glw said:

logical_song said:

Isn't the Foreign Secretary supposed to give the UK's view?

Only when he lies, not when he tells the truth.

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

I have a suggestion - replace him with George Osborne - well it is only a suggestion

What's wrong with being more candid about Saudi?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky news just now - 'final day of celebrations at the Supreme Court' and corrected by deliberations.

Think that sublimal message says it all about Sky (EU) broadcasting

Time to boycott the Murdoch papers I think...which might sound counterintuitive but be in no doubt he is a globalist and wants the softest of Brexits whilst still hiding behind the sun. He knows the BBC don't take that paper seriously only the times and sky are taken seriously out of his empire here.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

glw said:

logical_song said:

Isn't the Foreign Secretary supposed to give the UK's view?

Only when he lies, not when he tells the truth.

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

I have a suggestion - replace him with George Osborne - well it is only a suggestion

What's wrong with being more candid about Saudi?

The trouble is he's the Foreign Secretary, his job is to represent HMG.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

glw said:

logical_song said:

Isn't the Foreign Secretary supposed to give the UK's view?

Only when he lies, not when he tells the truth.

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

I have a suggestion - replace him with George Osborne - well it is only a suggestion

Actually a very good suggestion. Osborne is the ultimate networker - ideal for the scheming and discreet alliance forming in the palaces and embassies of foreign climes.

nunu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky news just now - 'final day of celebrations at the Supreme Court' and corrected by deliberations.

Think that sublimal message says it all about Sky (EU) broadcasting

Time to boycott the Murdoch papers I think...which might sound counterintuitive but be in no doubt he is a globalist and wants the softest of Brexits whilst still hiding behind the sun. He knows the BBC don't take that paper seriously only the times and sky are taken seriously out of his empire here.

I do not think Murdoch has any influence on Sky News which acts independently

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

That would be funny. Personally I think the claim was utterly dishonest but just imagine a situation in 2020 where the Chancellor stands up at the budget to announce a specific increase in NHS funding of £350m a week even if it hadn't come directly from the money saved by Brexit.

I think there will be a lot of mileage in proposing an annual £70m per week increase for five years, thereby satisfying the £350m claim, but letting inflation eat into around half the figure anyway.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

"10 days to save the NHS from crooked Tory cash"

Lol. We should start a market on which day during the GE campaign Labor will start the x number of hours to save the NHS bs....

Put me down for 72 hours.

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

Pulpstar said:

Charles said:

Recidivist said:

MP_SE said:

Moses_ said:

In regard to the fake news discussion I was reminded earlier of the headline of the year put on the BBC website when a suicide bomber blew up a bar in Ansbach Germany reporting it as ....

'Syrian injured in German blast"

....and his name wasn't Dave with psychological issues either which was the standard line / mickey take that came later of course.

I remember the UKIP member who a paper claimed was making a nazi salute. As a result of this he was fired from his job, lost his home, bankrupted and his marriage broke down. Turns out he was just trying to block a friend taking a photo of him. I believe the paper in question settled out of court for destroying his life.

Surely his wife knew he wasn't a Nazi? And there are tribunals to combat unfair dismissal - which would be appropriate even if he actually were a Nazi since that isn't a crime.

Presumably stress of losing job/house/press intrusion contributed to marriage breakdown, while firm could have sacked him for bringing the firm into disrepute.

I'd want at least a million (Post tax) (& My life/Job is quite "ordinary") for that level of life wreckingness to be honest. I hope he got the payout he REALLY deserved.

Hope he capped his lawyer's take...

Well when you hear of celebs getting huge payouts for their phones being hacked when its had no noticeable effect on their career or life at all, you'd hope the man on the street would get MORE for a much much larger detriment.

Although he wouldn't have been able to get the publicity and would have been working with a no-win-no-fee lawyer so wouldn't have the ability to continue the fight past the initial offer

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

.

£18.2 Bn extra in 2020.

The NHS needs both reform, and more money.

NOT a bottomless pit - clear efficiency savings through technology can and should be made (NOT bottomless IT projects though), but ~ 1% extra of GDP at the minimum in real terms ASAP.
I think both perhaps a penny on tax and cuts in other areas should be made to fund it.

Anecdotal: Took ~ 2.5 hrs from arrival to discharge last time I visited A&E, I'd give my fiancee's issue was dealt with a 5/5 from the staff and system @ Chesterfield.

My daughter today told she needed physio , 24 month waiting list on NHS advised to go private. Private she can get appointment Monday. Money i sbeing wasted big time.

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

.

£18.2 Bn extra in 2020.

The NHS needs both reform, and more money.

NOT a bottomless pit - clear efficiency savings through technology can and should be made (NOT bottomless IT projects though), but ~ 1% extra of GDP at the minimum in real terms ASAP.
I think both perhaps a penny on tax and cuts in other areas should be made to fund it.

Anecdotal: Took ~ 2.5 hrs from arrival to discharge last time I visited A&E, I'd give my fiancee's issue was dealt with a 5/5 from the staff and system @ Chesterfield.

My daughter today told she needed physio , 24 month waiting list on NHS advised to go private. Private she can get appointment Monday. Money i sbeing wasted big time.

Is that in Scotland

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

.

£18.2 Bn extra in 2020.

The NHS needs both reform, and more money.

NOT a bottomless pit - clear efficiency savings through technology can and should be made (NOT bottomless IT projects though), but ~ 1% extra of GDP at the minimum in real terms ASAP.
I think both perhaps a penny on tax and cuts in other areas should be made to fund it.

Anecdotal: Took ~ 2.5 hrs from arrival to discharge last time I visited A&E, I'd give my fiancee's issue was dealt with a 5/5 from the staff and system @ Chesterfield.

My daughter today told she needed physio , 24 month waiting list on NHS advised to go private. Private she can get appointment Monday. Money i sbeing wasted big time.

Is that in Scotland

It is indeed.

not_on_fire said:

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

Douglas Murray has his 2p

"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.

When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.

...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4011874/POPULISM-s-BBC-s-new-buzzword-used-sneer-uneducated-17-million-voted-Brexit.html

That and FAKE NEWS....

I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.

Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?

Pull the other one.

Yes, I'm a little baffled myself. I guess there's more false stuff that is less, other than its news like presentation, comedic, but I'm really struggling for outrage. The main problem seems to be more people fall for it? The problem there is not the false news but people.

The context is important. Private Eye and the Onion are well known to be satiric publications and no one reports them as factual news. On Facebook real and fake news are given the same prominence without any obvious way of distinguishing them other than the reader's judgment.

Fake news has existed as long as newspapers and broadcast media has existed. Indeed one might suggest the current media frenzy about fake news is being driven by the mainstream media fear that they are in danger of becoming extinct.

IanB2 said:

slade said:

MarkSenior said:

stodge said:

david_herdson said:

A better solution might be:

1. to clamp down on big (snip)

1) I suppose the argument goes if someone wants to give a Party £1 million that's their business - it's more of a question as to whether the Party could or should choose to accept it. I think it's a laudable aim - I'm not sure how practical.

2) Broadly speaking, I'd support it so all parties would have a single expenditure limit - £x million - and it would be up to them if they spent all of that nationally or all of it in some constituencies and nothing elsewhere.

I seem to recall a previous debate on here before when someone claimed that the Lib Dems had clearly exceeded the expenses limits for a by election because they had distributed loads of leaflets that must have cost a fortune to produce .
Leaflets printed by yourself on your own printer by volunteers clearly cost almost nothing beyond the cost of the paper ( which may have been bought and paid for prior to the short campaign . Leaflets bought from a printing company would cost vastly more . /the cost of leaflets printed by say a neighbouring Lib Dem Association which has their own printer may cause more problems in assessing the cost of producing them .

This of course was the basis of the Richmond judgement. After the Liberals won the GLC seat in Richmond they were taken to court by the Conservatives. The issue was whether the Liberals had recorded the true cost of their literature. It had been produced 'in house' by a printing society. As far as I remember the judgement was that a 'market price' should have been recorded rather than the actual price. As a result the winning Liberal was deemed not elected.

I don't think you have that quite right, unless the printing firm was also operating as a commercial printer. A party can definitely buy a printing machine and operate it itself, only charging the cost of materials (and something to cover the machine - for example a notional rental) and there wasn't any judgement in Richmond that changed this. Perhaps Richmond was the origin of the 10% figure that I mentioned earlier (which is correct, i checked) that a supportive supplier can give as a discount?

Yes that is pretty much correct , the grey area being perhaps if the leaflets were printed by a neighboring Lib Dem constituency on their own machine .

"Guido believes". "Guido understands". Guido is the messiah!

In other news, Ewen MacAskill, the Guardian's defence and intelligence correspondent, cuts and pastes from his handout to say reports that SIS chief Alex Younger (an economics graduate)

"declined to provide details of how Britain was responding to such threats (to British sovereignty), citing operational reasons, but it is known the UK government does not see a need to respond to Russia in a symmetrical way, such as launching a counter-cyber-attack. Instead it could launch a series of counter-measures such as sanctions."

Oh I bet that'll have them shaking in their boots in Kensington Palace Gardens and the Kremlin.

Funny how Russian military writing only ever refers to "hybrid warfare" in the context of western notions. You wonder whether Younger has been briefed properly.

Imagine using the verb "launch" with the noun "sanctions"! Call yourself a writer, Ewen?

Current Britgov messages include:

* Britain needs NATO because Britain might take a while to defeat Russia without US help

* Britain could whack the Russians into touch by giving them a taste of their own cyber and propaganda and infowar medicine, but has decided for the moment that it won't. And SIS hopes you editor types are taking notes properly on that point. Don't write that since US agencies and their satellites congratulated themselves to the skies for the "Arab spring" they have been completely and utterly outplayed by the Kremlin. Repeat, don't print that. Don't say they can't f*** up Russia the same way they f***ed up so many Arab countries, using Facebook and Twitter.

* Ooh, sanctions! Imagine a state official in LONDON of all places talking about sanctions against Russia!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

logical_song said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

glw said:

logical_song said:

Isn't the Foreign Secretary supposed to give the UK's view?

Only when he lies, not when he tells the truth.

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

I have a suggestion - replace him with George Osborne - well it is only a suggestion

What's wrong with being more candid about Saudi?

The trouble is he's the Foreign Secretary, his job is to represent HMG.

Ok, but what's wrong with being more candid about Saudi?

Nothing necessarily. But these things should be done privately and discreetly, and for bonus points preferably not come out on the day your boss is shaking hands with the Saudi King!

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

logical_song said:

RobD said:

MaxPB said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

SandyRentool said:

Jobabob said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jobab, I'm happy for the French to call us rosbifs. Or Aussies to call us poms.

Now you know what, exactly? I'm relaxed about international piss-taking, or that I'm irked when my own nation's leader speaks contemptuously of the majority of his own electorate?

The idea that travelling to London or Paris imbues someone with a magical perspective and intellectual insight is sillier than a mongoose wearing a fez.

You pick and choose which derogatory terms are 'okay' to suit your argument. It really is that simple.

And yes, do get out more – you might find you like the 'Frogs' after all (if you actually bothered to meet them).

You might also find that some of us "Red BNP Knuckledraggers" aren't too bad either!

I'm not the one pontificating. How is that £350 million a week for the NHS going down with the natives?

Not that I find it very likely, but if the Tories go in with a "£350m per week extra for the NHS" pledge in 2020, will your head explode?

.

I can just imagine it now - we'd all be arguing whether or not the bus meant £350mn in real terms or not.

£70million oer week, regardless of the amount of time it is over, is not £350million per week.
Why does that even have to be said?

.

£18.2 Bn extra in 2020.

The NHS needs both reform, and more money.

NOT a bottomless pit - clear efficiency savings through technology can and should be made (NOT bottomless IT projects though), but ~ 1% extra of GDP at the minimum in real terms ASAP.
I think both perhaps a penny on tax and cuts in other areas should be made to fund it.

Anecdotal: Took ~ 2.5 hrs from arrival to discharge last time I visited A&E, I'd give my fiancee's issue was dealt with a 5/5 from the staff and system @ Chesterfield.

My daughter today told she needed physio , 24 month waiting list on NHS advised to go private. Private she can get appointment Monday. Money i sbeing wasted big time.

This is because the NHS can't afford to pay physisos anywhere near enough given the rates they can charge privately.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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

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

The rule applies to the foreign service, the rest of Whitehall, the BBC, the rest of the media, the judiciary.

Stark_Dawning said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

not_on_fire said:

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

Douglas Murray has his 2p

"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.

When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.

...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4011874/POPULISM-s-BBC-s-new-buzzword-used-sneer-uneducated-17-million-voted-Brexit.html

That and FAKE NEWS....

I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.

Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?

Pull the other one.

Yes, I'm a little baffled myself. I guess there's more false stuff that is less, other than its news like presentation, comedic, but I'm really struggling for outrage. The main problem seems to be more people fall for it? The problem there is not the false news but people.

The context is important. Private Eye and the Onion are well known to be satiric publications and no one reports them as factual news. On Facebook real and fake news are given the same prominence without any obvious way of distinguishing them other than the reader's judgment.

Fake news has existed as long as newspapers and broadcast media has existed. Indeed one might suggest the current media frenzy about fake news is being driven by the mainstream media fear that they are in danger of becoming extinct.

Quite right. The scurrilous underground pamphlets of the 18th century spring to mind. Indeed, there was an ancient English law (imported into Canada and curiously used for the prosecution of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel) that attempted to outlaw the dissemination of false news by the town crier.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg31rn_9eao

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

No, they don't. Not for 10 years. It's highly regulated - symposia have to have real demonstrable benefits, while studies are exactly that: scientific efforts to determine the effects of drugs, with all the results (good and bad) publicly available

I don't deny either fact, but it doesn't change an iota of what I said. I spoke to a man the other week with MS. He had enjoyed six years of a life with no symptoms due to a relatively straightforward venous surgery he had in Bulgaria. Banned in the UK, due to one case of death whereby the operation was conducted in a faulty way that no longer occurs. Compare that to the thousands of fatalities from the side effects of other therapies and drugs that are freely available in the UK. It's the treatments and drugs that DON'T get through that are the issue.

The precautionary principle has a lot to answer for, but that's not really the fault of the drug companies.

I fail to see how it's precautionary, when other treatments with far worse fatality rates are allowed. What this treatment is is cheap and effective, neither of which is good news to the drugs companies, and this man firmly believes that the NHS is hand in glove with these companies in banning this procedure - and I agree. Not in terms of Rolex watches and brown envelopes but in an invisible but generally effective 'nexus' of funding and influence.

The case of that poor boy (still not dead by the way) with cancer who was condemned to die by the NHS, whose parents were arrested for discharging him and taking him away for a genuinely effective alternative treatment abroad. Bulgaria again I think?

Again, our Health Service delivering awful outcomes despite billions chucked at it, because (I believe) it's lost its way and become a drug company feeding frenzy.

O/T but best news of the day.

Phil Shiner from Public Interest Lawers, has admitted he acted without integrity in chasing British servicemen for alleged crimes in Iraq, and says he accepts he will be struck off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/08/iraq-human-rights-lawyer-phil-shiner-faces-struck-admittingrecklessness/

Chelyabinsk said:

not_on_fire said:

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

Douglas Murray has his 2p

"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.

When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.

...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4011874/POPULISM-s-BBC-s-new-buzzword-used-sneer-uneducated-17-million-voted-Brexit.html

That and FAKE NEWS....

I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.

Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?

Pull the other one.

Yes, I'm a little baffled myself. I guess there's more false stuff that is less, other than its news like presentation, comedic, but I'm really struggling for outrage. The main problem seems to be more people fall for it? The problem there is not the false news but people.

The context is important. Private Eye and the Onion are well known to be satiric publications and no one reports them as factual news. On Facebook real and fake news are given the same prominence without any obvious way of distinguishing them other than the reader's judgment.

Anybody who actually reads Private Eye knows they do more hard-hitting investigative journalism than many mainstream outlets, from foot and mouth to MMR. If the rest of the news took itself as seriously as Private Eye, there wouldn't be this crisis of confidence.

Their MMR reporting was shameful. Their other stuff is good.

Dromedary said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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

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

The rule applies to the foreign service, the rest of Whitehall, the BBC, the rest of the media, the judiciary.

It's not because of weapons contracts. If we gave so much of a shit about that we wouldn't buy so much from the yanks.

Luckyguy1983 said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

This is because the NHS can't afford to pay physisos anywhere near enough given the rates they can charge privately.

Yup, I had a knee injury earlier in the year the NHS said I'd need to wait at least three months before I could even get an MRI. A friend of mine who works for the NHS said the kind of injury I had could lead to permanent damage if it was untreated so I went private. I'm lucky enough to be in a position that I could go private for the MRI and the resulting physio sessions, but a lot of people aren't able to do so. I was told by the physio that for my knee injury I'd have been waiting another six months after the MRI to get an NHS physio, so a total of nine months. We pay doctors and nurses very well in this country now, it is the rest of the support staff that have to be given a bit of a pay rise and morale boost. I'd sack 50% of the managers and then move to a one in one out basis for new hires, that would probably free up enough money to ensure the medical support staff get a decent enough pay rise.

Increasing pay doesn't work.

It does wonders for staff retention.

Dromedary said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

What this treatment is is cheap and effective, neither of which is good news to the drugs companies, and this man firmly believes that the NHS is hand in glove with these companies in banning this procedure - and I agree. Not in terms of Rolex watches and brown envelopes but in an invisible but generally effective 'nexus' of funding and influence.

What about holidays in Dubai, for medics and "health" officials who love lording it over the coolies in luxury hotels and on yachts because they wouldn't get much enjoyment going to Paris, Rome or Prague?

Britain is as corrupt as any other country.

Nope, we're the 12 LEAST corrupt nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Alistair said:

Chelyabinsk said:

not_on_fire said:

kle4 said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

PlatoSaid said:

Douglas Murray has his 2p

"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.

When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.

...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4011874/POPULISM-s-BBC-s-new-buzzword-used-sneer-uneducated-17-million-voted-Brexit.html

That and FAKE NEWS....

I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.

Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?

Pull the other one.

Yes, I'm a little baffled myself. I guess there's more false stuff that is less, other than its news like presentation, comedic, but I'm really struggling for outrage. The main problem seems to be more people fall for it? The problem there is not the false news but people.

The context is important. Private Eye and the Onion are well known to be satiric publications and no one reports them as factual news. On Facebook real and fake news are given the same prominence without any obvious way of distinguishing them other than the reader's judgment.

Anybody who actually reads Private Eye knows they do more hard-hitting investigative journalism than many mainstream outlets, from foot and mouth to MMR. If the rest of the news took itself as seriously as Private Eye, there wouldn't be this crisis of confidence.

Their MMR reporting was shameful. Their other stuff is good.

Absolutely right.

I think the biggest news of the day is the ECB signalling loose monetary policy until the end of 2017. If that isn't now a competitive devaluation against USD and the newly weakened Sterling then I'm not sure what is. The EU economy certainly looks healthy enough for a taper and halt by the middle of next year, committing until the end of 2017 looks to me like political pressure from Berlin to hold down the Euro and continue exploiting the wholly unsuitable exchange rate.

Dromedary said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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

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

The rule applies to the foreign service, the rest of Whitehall, the BBC, the rest of the media, the judiciary.

We're merely aping the American pandering to Saudi despots. I very very strongly suspect that Trump will not bow (literally) to the king of Saudi Arabia as Obama did. I'm pretty certain that they're going to get the hairdryer treatment. And not before bloody time. And tout de suite our own attitude to middle eastern despots is likely to fall in line. Boris may have merely jumped the gun.

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

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

I fail to see how it's precautionary, when other treatments with far worse fatality rates are allowed. What this treatment is is cheap and effective, neither of which is good news to the drugs companies, and this man firmly believes that the NHS is hand in glove with these companies in banning this procedure - and I agree. Not in terms of Rolex watches and brown envelopes but in an invisible but generally effective 'nexus' of funding and influence.

The case of that poor boy (still not dead by the way) with cancer who was condemned to die by the NHS, whose parents were arrested for discharging him and taking him away for a genuinely effective alternative treatment abroad. Bulgaria again I think?

Again, our Health Service delivering awful outcomes despite billions chucked at it, because (I believe) it's lost its way and become a drug company feeding frenzy.

The precautionary principle is also known as CYA. It's nothing to do with good medical practice.

The procedure has killed once person and is banned. The regulator who unbans it will be blamed for any future deaths.

Proton beams therapy is something different. It works well in some cases, but at the time it wasn't approved for use in the NHS because there wasn't the efficacy or healtheconomic data to support reimbursement. (Facilities are now being built). But there was clearly a breakdown in trust between the hospital and the father in the case you are referring to - I suspect we will never know the full story but the fact that they went to the courts strongly suggests they didn't believe the father was acting in the boy's best interests. (The farce of the pan-European manhunt was something entirely different)

And please remember drug spending is about 11% of health spending. It's really not the priority to focus on from a cost management perspective - but it's easy for the politicians so they do so.

Thank you for the genuinely insightful comments, it is appreciated. I am not just speaking of drugs, but about equipment, and all other elements of treatment. I'm not in the 'sitting on a cure for cancer' camp, but it is a fact that rates of cancer, asthma, diabetes and other lifestyle diseases are rising, and that scarily people are being brought to an 'understanding' that they will probably one day get cancer - it's the new normal. What needs to happen is cancer prevention, not cancer treatment, but what funding is there for that? Bugger all, because there's no money in it for the pharmaceuticals, and conversely many of the dietary and environmental recommendations that would result would cost corporations billions.

Sandpit said:

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

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

Lay draw in cricket still btw.