British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
It's sensible if you have to pay for it. That's the point. You have to RATION care, you have to DENY care that WORKS because it's too expensive for the benefits it generates.
Which is what some people here called euthanasia before lol (it isn't).
There is no problem at all with expensive drugs if no one is mandated to pay for them. Just allow them to be sold though
the nhs have decided no but we're still waiting on a decision if they can be sold privately:
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/three...
need the mhra to make a decision
good news tho they just said yes to lecanemab:
It's sensible if you have to pay for it. That's the point. You have to RATION care, you have to DENY care that WORKS because it's too expensive for the benefits it generates.
Which is what some people here called euthanasia before lol (it isn't).
There is no problem at all with expensive drugs if no one is mandated to pay for them. Just allow them to be sold though
The NHS deciding not to supply a new drug because the cost-benefit calculation seems unfavourable at present does not necessarily mean that the (quite large) private sector can't use the drug or that it's clinically unapproved in that sense.
And private-sector medicine based on ability to pay is also a form of rationing, but rationing by privilege and income.
The NHS deciding not to supply a new drug because the cost-benefit calculation seems unfavourable at present does not necessarily mean that the (quite large) private sector can't use the drug or that it's clinically unapproved in that sense.
And private-sector medicine based on ability to pay is also a form of rationing, but rationing by privilege and income.
privilege lol.
scarce resources are scarce, if demand surpasses supply, someone is going to do without. in any model, necessarily.
Who gets the scarce stuff demanded in excess , that process is called allocation.
Allocation based on your, or your ancestors, contribution to society (aka money, which tracks exactly that) is obviously the most moral form.
ofc people with low or non existent personal, or family contribution to society (ie people without money) disagree.
prices also allow markets to act, if something is demanded a lot, so price is high, others will try to supply it. see ozempic which has competition now, growing
This thread has been a bin fire for the past few weeks.
The NHS deciding not to supply a new drug because the cost-benefit calculation seems unfavourable at present does not necessarily mean that the (quite large) private sector can't use the drug or that it's clinically unapproved in that sense.
And private-sector medicine based on ability to pay is also a form of rationing, but rationing by privilege and income.
Yes, the sums for the Alzheimer's drug just didn't seem to add up. However, people should be free to pay privately
I do wonder how many people will do something like equity release and flush their children's inheritance down the swanny for a few extra months of low quality life?
I suspect not many.
Kier apparently about to make a speech about how everything is awful and the Tories the Tories the Tories
Not sure of the wisdom of that. Sounds a bit whiny
Didn't stop you voting for the Tories during 14 years of saying how everything was awful and Labour, Labour, Labour.
Speaking of whiny
Speaking of hypocrisy
we do have "pills" (procedures) that increase life expectancy without allowing for economic contribution right now, and we aren't figuring out how to increase productivity enough (something we would do regardless to improve life conditions), which is why the olds are becoming an ever increasing burden in Italy, Germany, south Korea, Japan and so on.
Not all productivity growth is created equal:
The thing is when we drill down into all that what we see is that the bulk of the benefits of our productivity growth over the last 20 years or so mostly increased businesses competitiveness against other businesses in the marketplace as opposed to providing tangible quality of life improving benefits to consumers.
I'm not sure it was ever exactly All Souls Common Room on a particularly mellow evening.
TE Lawrence once walked into All Souls and a bishop looked up from reading The Times and said, 'Ah, Lawrence. Where have you been?' 'London, my lord.' 'And how was the capital? How was the traffic? Was it... exsuccous?' 'Exsuccous, my lord, but not positively inspissated.'
Oh great Kier Starmer pushing Austerity by another name using taxation by another name as some sort of glorious 5 year plan.
You know, the '5 year plan' approach that never works out wherever it's been done.
Twist is, because of inflation, it's the 10 year plan.
I'd like to hear what the plan is, not what the taxes are or how painful it will be.
BBC report says:
"I frankly don't want to take the tough decisions we're going to have to take," he says.
it should be:
"I frankly don't want to take the tough decisions we're going to have to take," he whines.
seriously, banging on about 22 billiion shortfall would sound stupid if you talked about a 1.4% shortfall.
The con is always the same - they know when they talk in absolute numbers people will think "oh that's a huge amount" and not oppose their policies but if they talk about % of GDP they'd be thrown out.
I think I'm starting to align with Jalfrezi.
We're all doomed.
The con is always the same - they know when they talk in absolute numbers people will think "oh that's a huge amount" and not oppose their policies but if they talk about % of GDP they'd be thrown out.
1.4% of GDP just to break even with what already exists is an insane amount, given there is a list of things Labour would like to do that require even more money.
They barely had fiscal coverage for some of their plans through increases in taxes they campaigned for, but if they have to use them to cover the 1.4% gap there is no money for anything new.
Or i mean you keep doing deficits so inflation so rates stay high and what could go wrong right?
The con is always the same - they know when they talk in absolute numbers people will think "oh that's a huge amount" and not oppose their policies but if they talk about % of GDP they'd be thrown out.
Throwing them pout is not teh problem. Creating somethign better to replace them with is the hard bit
BBC report says:
"I frankly don't want to take the tough decisions we're going to have to take," he says.
it should be:
"I frankly don't want to take the tough decisions we're going to have to take," he whines.
'Frankly I'n not going to take any tough decisions (well not tough for me anyway)' he means
The UK is set to start talks on a new co-operation treaty with Germany, as the Labour government looks to "reset" relations with Europe.
Sir Keir Starmer, who is in Berlin for meetings with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, said the deal was part of a bid to "turn a corner on Brexit".
Downing Street said the agreement would cover areas such as energy security, technology and science.
It added it would also cover access to each other's markets and trade across the North Sea.
After Berlin, Sir Keir will travel to Paris to meet French President Emmanuel Macron and attend the Paralympics opening ceremony.
It's a start...
Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Tory councillor, has pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to publishing a social media post which stirred up racial hatred.
The 41-year old called for mass deportations and attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers in a post on X on the day three girls were killed in Southport.
"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bas***** for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it," the post read.
Judge Adrienne Lucking KC told Lucy Connolly she's likely to be sent to jail when she is sentenced next month.
