Friday 5th February 2016

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 6:17 am

Morning!

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/nicky-morgan-a ... ent-group/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nicky-morgan-announces-22-new-free-schools-but-only-one-is-from-a-parent-group

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 6:36 am

Morning all.

Sheffield Labour MP Harry Harpham dies - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-so ... e-35499240" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 7:24 am

Nice one

Shropshire, Oswestry South - Green gain from Conservative

Swing Cons to Green
14¼% since 2013
26¼% since 2009

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 8:46 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning!

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/nicky-morgan-a ... ent-group/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nicky-morgan-announces-22-new-free-schools-but-only-one-is-from-a-parent-group

Think they reallised a while back that letting someone with no previous experience run a school was mad so they've been quietly moving towards just letting existing academy chains open them but calling them all free schools - just to hit the 500 target that Cameron set.

Remember this?

http://flythenest.freeforums.org/when-i ... -t566.html

Dividing line between academy and free school has been blurred since 2010.

50 new academies were created between 2010 and 2015 but weren't called free schools.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 9:05 am

Latest Benefit Cap Stats

Of households contain:-

86% not expected to work; 1%recently widowed;7% CA -the latter will continue to be illegally applied in recognition of valued contribution -the warped view is that justified as 98% receivers of CA in general are exempted,of course any sane person would view that as only highlighting perniciousness.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ember-2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 9:11 am

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-netw ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An attack on social housing is also an attack on older people
Dawn Foster

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 9:30 am

If the polling consistently shows a vote for 'Out', how does that play out with Conservative ministers? Is it easier to break ranks and go against Cameron?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 9:46 am

Good-morning, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 9:59 am

StephenDolan wrote:If the polling consistently shows a vote for 'Out', how does that play out with Conservative ministers? Is it easier to break ranks and go against Cameron?

Apologies, StephenDolan, for not having an answer to your excellent question. I've a question of my own.

I don't like powerful scoundrels working against the interests of people and countries. I call them the PowersThatBe, PTB (sounds like a banned insecticide). I get the impression the PowersThatBe (PTB) have no intention of allowing the UK to choose to leave the EU. Please understand me - I rather like the EU and as I've written here recently, I think it's a better idea for the UK to remain IN the EU. I doubt the PTB and I agree on much else. Furthermore, the motivations of the PTB probably don't coincide with my own. Of course, I could be mistaken about the intentions of the powerful ensuring the UK remain in the EU. Please let me know if I've got the wrong end of this boondoggle absurdity of Dave Cameron's making.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 10:58 am

citizenJA wrote:... Please let me know if I've got the wrong end of this boondoggle absurdity of Dave Cameron's making.

Sorry, гражданка, as I don't have the answer to your question but should the PTB indeed wish it, I'm sure the count would favour our staying in. What prompted me to answer was the Americanism 'boondoggle', a term I'm not overly familiar with; indeed one I had to look up, but yes, an absurdity of Dave's own making. As I've said before I actually think he's rather stupid. He certainly lacks forethought, which is all the more surprising given you'd expect at least some intelligence amongst his advisors. He may be the PTB's patsy, only good at bluff and bluster, but you'd still have expected him not to have created so many problems for them. I am of course speaking of PTB problems and not those he has caused the rest of us.

Stupid is as stupid does.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 11:11 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Nice one

Shropshire, Oswestry South - Green gain from Conservative

Swing Cons to Green
14¼% since 2013
26¼% since 2009

Tories lost a seat in Northumberland as well.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 11:18 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Nice one

Shropshire, Oswestry South - Green gain from Conservative

Swing Cons to Green
14¼% since 2013
26¼% since 2009
Tories lost a seat in Northumberland as well.

I'm sure I read somewhere else that this latest crop of results had been terrible for Labour?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 11:46 am

I've just noticed a news report on the cost of bed-blocking, about £900m per annum but also noted that 1 in 10 was quoted as a blocked bed. If so £900m strikes me as an underestimate. I appreciate total costs do much more than provide beds but I'm still surprised because if 10% of beds are blocked a crude approximation of 100% is only £9bn.

As I say, I'm just a little surprised. No doubt RobertSnozers would have a much greater grasp of the figures than I. I didn't catch who did the survey.

Postscript: a crude approximation indeed as blocked beds no doubt incur lower costs than those requiring more treatment.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 11:49 am

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 3h3 hours ago
Bad night for the Tories in latest local by-election - losing to saet to GRN in Oswestry & IND in Hexham

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 11:52 am

A letter to BLP, from Wokingham Lab Party.

Wokingham's Labour Party Facebook Page will soon be back up and running I believe, so if you have been trying to join that don't panic! It's on the way!
We have been swamped with members over here. Think about another 100 have joined in the last two months.

I was intrigued to see membership numbers mentioned. But even more intrigued that they'd joined in the last two months. The Corbyn blood fest was well under way by then.

It's flying in the face of everything we're being led to believe by the media, and the more right wing Labour members.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:12 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Nice one

Shropshire, Oswestry South - Green gain from Conservative

Swing Cons to Green
14¼% since 2013
26¼% since 2009
Tories lost a seat in Northumberland as well.
I'm sure I read somewhere else that this latest crop of results had been terrible for Labour?

You doubtless did, somewhere

No chance that you could name and shame?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: Tories lost a seat in Northumberland as well.
I'm sure I read somewhere else that this latest crop of results had been terrible for Labour?
You doubtless did, somewhere

No chance that you could name and shame?

Sardinho BTL at the AS blog today.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:17 pm

UN panel make human rights look stupid by latching on to cause celebre Assange.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:20 pm

Much against my better judgement but here you go (from the Readers' Edition, Guardian - I'm assuming that this is the piece in question although, if not, it must be close)

Sardinho
2h ago
6 7

Last nights local by-election result were awful for Labour, again.

Apart from Oswestry South - where Labour increased it's share of the vote by an impressive 9%. Unfortunately, this is not as impressive as it appears at first glance. The share of the vote increased from 0% to 9%, they didn't field a candidate last time.
The Greens won that seat on a 14% swing from the Tories!

Elsewhere Labour's vote was down everywhere, and they lost seat to the Tories in Sandbach. How bad will election results in May have to be for some erstwhile Corbyn supporters to start thinking that maybe electing Jeremy was perhaps a mistake?

Edited to add -

The above was intended as a reply to AnatolyKasparov

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:21 pm

Good morfternoon.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:22 pm

Whoops - sorry for the duplication of information.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:27 pm

Cancer.

It's a horrible thing; both my parents died of it, I've had a scare or two myself, and most of us know someone who has been treated for it.
More people survive it than die from it now; for those who are terminally ill, palliative care is improving (albeit slowly).

Although treatment can be harrowing, and have side-effects which can leave behind new health issues and/or disabilities, it works most of the time - even if only to extend the life a patient. Hospice and home care is excellent in some places - most notably in Wales.

Which brings me to the Tories' Cancer Drugs Fund.
OGRPPFGTCC Slimy Dave bangs on about this marvellous thing, and constantly attacks the NHS in Wales for not having one - whilst conveniently ignoring that NHS Wales gets just £6 Billion PA in funding, and the Cancer Drugs Fund is costing £1.27 Billion over its' 6 year lifespan so it's not affordable in Wales anyway, and despite a higher incidence of cancer in Wales it gets no extra funding.
The Welsh media - most notably the BBC - are forever running stories about people who have left Wales to live in England where they can get access to the Fund. The Assembly government has, to its' credit, resisted attempts to set up a Fund for Wales.

80,000 people have benefited from the Cancer Drugs Fund. That's about 13,000 people annually. The vast majority have been funded for drugs which may extend their life - not drugs which will cure their cancers. The drugs have not been approved by NICE, and in some cases there is not only a question regarding their cost benefit but another on whether they actually work at all.
According to the NAO report on this (published last autumn) there is no data available to assess the impact on survival outcomes of those patients given drugs by the Fund; only 7% of patient records had an outcome summary in 2014/15. The average cost per patient was £16,700 - in some cases it was much less, but a few patients had funding in excess of £100,000.

NICE already approves drugs for extended life for cancer patients, using QALYs - in 2014/15, it approved 38% of all extended-life applications for drugs costing more than £50,000 if the drug extends life for more than 3 months.
Whilst I absolutely understand that being able to extend a life for a few weeks or months could be a wonderful thing for a patient and their family, and it is impossible to put a price on the value of extending a life, most of the time the QALY system is fair.

NICE - quite rightly, IMHO - does not necessarily refuse a drug on costs alone; a drug can be refused if there is no clinical evidence that it will have the effect claimed for it. This happens more often than not.
Another issue is the way the cost of these drugs is calculated by drug companies and middlemen - one of them, Imnovid (for multiple myeloma) costs the NHS £115,000 for one year's treatment, but costs £100 to produce.
One of the most commonly asked-for drugs is Avastin, which costs £35,000 for treatment here (on average - as it can be used for various different cancers for varying lengths of time) whereas in other countries, eg. Spain, it's half that.

The Cancer Drugs Fund has, in my view, led to a climate of largely unjustified hope for some patients; it has been mismanaged to the extent that it pays way above the odds for drugs sold much cheaper elsewhere; it has allowed drug companies to get away with predatory pricing; and it has cost the taxpayer one-and-a-quarter billion pounds.

At a time when 40% of acute hospital trusts in NHS England are missing their 62-day urgent cancer treatment targets (delaying treatment for 20,000 people annually) should we spend more than a billion on this Fund?

I think not.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:29 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 3h3 hours ago
Bad night for the Tories in latest local by-election - losing to saet to GRN in Oswestry & IND in Hexham

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 45 mins45 minutes ago
Hexham W (Northumberland) result:

IND (Kennedy): 36.6% (+36.6)
CON: 33.2% (-15.2)
LAB: 14.6% (-0.3)
IND (Pickering): 9.1% (+9.1)
GRN: 6.5%

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:29 pm

Who is "Sardinho", then?

And citing town council results (as they did) is always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:31 pm

PorFavor wrote:Much against my better judgement but here you go (from the Readers' Edition, Guardian - I'm assuming that this is the piece in question although, if not, it must be close)

Sardinho
2h ago
6 7

Last nights local by-election result were awful for Labour, again.

Apart from Oswestry South - where Labour increased it's share of the vote by an impressive 9%. Unfortunately, this is not as impressive as it appears at first glance. The share of the vote increased from 0% to 9%, they didn't field a candidate last time.
The Greens won that seat on a 14% swing from the Tories!

Elsewhere Labour's vote was down everywhere, and they lost seat to the Tories in Sandbach. How bad will election results in May have to be for some erstwhile Corbyn supporters to start thinking that maybe electing Jeremy was perhaps a mistake?
Edited to add -

The above was intended as a reply to AnatolyKasparov

(my bold)

What? Is that true?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 12:32 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Who is "Sardinho", then?

And citing town council results (as they did) is always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

(my bold)

Incredibly pathetic, indeed.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 1:30 pm

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2 hrs2 hours ago

EU referendum poll [w/ scenario prompted that PM's draft proposals are agreed this month]:
Remain: 38%
Leave: 41%
(via YouGov / 03 - 04 Feb)

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 1:36 pm

Usually don't agree with this poster on Cif but this is well-put.

gilesjuk
16m ago
1 2

If you don't want this money wasted then the public needs to stop taking the government, NHS etc to court to get access to new "miracle" drugs that don't work.

People need to trust the experts and not the PR teams of pharma companies.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 1:38 pm

So this EU referendum, is it the new electoral roll? By that I mean the one that about a million people more likely to be left leaning and europhile have just dropped off.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:12 pm

A brilliant blog post.

http://kathleenkerridge.com/2015/01/28/ ... y-poverty/

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:20 pm

Cosmic Landmine ‏@cosmiclandmine 42 mins42 minutes ago

Dear #HMRC
I've visited Dublin & Luxemburg so I'd like to offer 4p to cover my tax liabilities for the past 10 years
Oops!
Did I overpay?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:27 pm

From January.

I missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/public-leade ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:37 pm

ohsocynical wrote:A brilliant blog post.

http://kathleenkerridge.com/2015/01/28/ ... y-poverty/

Afternoon all.
Thanks for the blogpost Mrs Ohso.
I hate it when 'celebs' give advice about frugal living.They don't have a clue usually.
India Knight wrote a book about it,and,well,she might have felt she was living frugally,would have been pretty lux to me.
I (foolishly) bought a book a couple of years ago called The Wonderful Weekend Book.Subject;reclaim your weekends with 'simple pleasures' which don't 'cost the earth'.
These included
buy cashmere sweaters for weekend wear
White Company pjs
Only work four day weeks so you can have long weekends
Pay someone to do the ironing
tea at the Ritz
hire a vintage car for weekend trips away
drink champagne throughout the day on Sunday
oh yes,write a couple of letters and sit in the garden reading while somebody else looks after the kids.
Nauseating and smug.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:45 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Usually don't agree with this poster on Cif but this is well-put.

gilesjuk
16m ago
1 2

If you don't want this money wasted then the public needs to stop taking the government, NHS etc to court to get access to new "miracle" drugs that don't work.

People need to trust the experts and not the PR teams of pharma companies.
Amen. I used to get so much crap from the media about 'why aren't you letting this person have that miracle drug?'... er, because it might as likely kill them as do any good, and for the same money we could save another ten people's lives with proven treatments thankyou very much.

And the 'cancer drugs fund' was a monumentally crap idea aimed solely at buying a few votes. There were perfectly sensible ways of ensuring people got the right treatment, even if it was an experimental or unlicensed treatment. To be honest, I'm amazed it didn't fall foul of some kind of discrimination law, because why just cancer? Why shouldn't, say, Parkinson's sufferers get hideously expensive un-evidenced treatments as well?

Yep.

I remember when I saw the first debate in 2010, and Cameron said "I want people to get the cancer drugs they need". I thought it was some vague feelgood stuff, and sarcastically posted on wsc "Does he think NICE flush cancer drugs down the loo for a laugh?"

I had no idea it was an actual policy, of incredible cynicism.

seeingclearly · Post by **seeingclearly** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:53 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Usually don't agree with this poster on Cif but this is well-put.

gilesjuk
16m ago
1 2

If you don't want this money wasted then the public needs to stop taking the government, NHS etc to court to get access to new "miracle" drugs that don't work.

People need to trust the experts and not the PR teams of pharma companies.
Amen. I used to get so much crap from the media about 'why aren't you letting this person have that miracle drug?'... er, because it might as likely kill them as do any good, and for the same money we could save another ten people's lives with proven treatments thankyou very much.

And the 'cancer drugs fund' was a monumentally crap idea aimed solely at buying a few votes. There were perfectly sensible ways of ensuring people got the right treatment, even if it was an experimental or unlicensed treatment. To be honest, I'm amazed it didn't fall foul of some kind of discrimination law, because why just cancer? Why shouldn't, say, Parkinson's sufferers get hideously expensive un-evidenced treatments as well?

Parkinsons sufferers do get hideously expensive unevidenced treatments, mainly by becoming guinea pigs on the many drug trial programmes, but occasionally on therapeutic exercise programmes too. The sheer diversity of the research is amazing, but across all drug trials for all diseases the average time it takes from petri dish to patient is approximately 18 years. Very very few trials meet their endpoints, vast amounts of research pounds and dollars go into them, the sums are truly astronomical and of course are in themselves various forms of investment opportunity. The protections for trial participants aren't that great, and most participate for more than just personal reasons. Altruism features high, and outcomes are by no means all positive.

TBF,Parkinsons especially in young onset sufferers has an extremely long prognosis, and many people wanting the very expensive cancer treatments are desperate for more time, and their carers carry a difficult burden, often patients are younger with children they want to see grow up and they know time is running out fast. In families where cancer has hit repeatedly by the time they get to needing these drugs it is mostly too late, and the premium that the drug companies put on such treatments is vile and unethical, a greed that goes too far. Access to such treatments is not for the many, the criteria are set to be difficult. A lottery that is biased selectively. It would be fairer perhaps to juxtapose cancer and motor neurone disease, which can progress very fast. The treatments for the latter are very few, and not that effective at all. No cures.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:56 pm

To be honest, I'm amazed it didn't fall foul of some kind of discrimination law, because why just cancer? Why shouldn't, say, Parkinson's sufferers get hideously expensive un-evidenced treatments as well?

I assume that the government has a right to set priorities as it wishes. It wants to prioritize cancer, it can. Just as it can prioritize academies over community schools. Is that comparable?

But might be interesting to see it tested in courts.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 2:58 pm

Catching up on yesterday's threads about fascism, found this link

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections

All sounds vaguely familiar

Also has quotes from a book by Milton Meyer
"They Thought they were free"

This crucial book tells how and why 'decent men' became Nazis through short biographies of 10 law-abiding citizens. An American journalist of German/Jewish descent, Mr. Mayer provides a fascinating window into the lives, thoughts and emotions of a people caught up in the rush of the Nazi movement. It is a book that should make people pause and think -- not only about the Germans, but also about themselves.

following bit seemed to fit with citizen's "i refuse to have my attention diverted by the rain of dead felines on the pavement"

Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about - we were decent people - annhd kept us so busy with continuous changes and "crises" and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the "national enemies", without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.

I'd not heard of the book, but now feel ignorant,
so will disappear to read it.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 3:00 pm

Play up Pompey...

Tory councillor accidentally sent details of 'smear plot' to intended targets

http://gu.com/p/4gebb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 3:33 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
To be honest, I'm amazed it didn't fall foul of some kind of discrimination law, because why just cancer? Why shouldn't, say, Parkinson's sufferers get hideously expensive un-evidenced treatments as well?
I assume that the government has a right to set priorities as it wishes. It wants to prioritize cancer, it can. Just as it can prioritize academies over community schools. Is that comparable?

But might be interesting to see it tested in courts.

Probably by a miffed drugs company with some other expensive treatment to sell.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 3:37 pm

Rebecca wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:A brilliant blog post.

http://kathleenkerridge.com/2015/01/28/ ... y-poverty/
Afternoon all.
Thanks for the blogpost Mrs Ohso.
I hate it when 'celebs' give advice about frugal living.They don't have a clue usually.
India Knight wrote a book about it,and,well,she might have felt she was living frugally,would have been pretty lux to me.
I (foolishly) bought a book a couple of years ago called The Wonderful Weekend Book.Subject;reclaim your weekends with 'simple pleasures' which don't 'cost the earth'.
These included
buy cashmere sweaters for weekend wear
White Company pjs
Only work four day weeks so you can have long weekends
Pay someone to do the ironing
tea at the Ritz
hire a vintage car for weekend trips away
drink champagne throughout the day on Sunday
oh yes,write a couple of letters and sit in the garden reading while somebody else looks after the kids.
Nauseating and smug.

Sounds as if they missed the final, most relaxing thing. Put the book on the log stove and ~~get all cosy in front of its warmth.~~ and luxuriate in front of its flames.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 3:39 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
To be honest, I'm amazed it didn't fall foul of some kind of discrimination law, because why just cancer? Why shouldn't, say, Parkinson's sufferers get hideously expensive un-evidenced treatments as well?
I assume that the government has a right to set priorities as it wishes. It wants to prioritize cancer, it can. Just as it can prioritize academies over community schools. Is that comparable?

But might be interesting to see it tested in courts.
Probably by a miffed drugs company with some other expensive treatment to sell.

Which will happen with TTIP or whatever it's called?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:03 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: I assume that the government has a right to set priorities as it wishes. It wants to prioritize cancer, it can. Just as it can prioritize academies over community schools. Is that comparable?

But might be interesting to see it tested in courts.
Probably by a miffed drugs company with some other expensive treatment to sell.
Which will happen with TTIP or whatever it's called?

Why?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:05 pm

Temulkar wrote:So this EU referendum, is it the new electoral roll? By that I mean the one that about a million people more likely to be left leaning and europhile have just dropped off.

Good point.

Either Cameron didn't think of this, or he thought it more important to have an advantage in the general election.

Worst PM ever.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:12 pm

I consider myself left-leaning politically and I support the UK remaining in the EU.
Is this unusual?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:27 pm

citizenJA wrote:I consider myself left-leaning politically and I support the UK remaining in the EU.
Is this unusual?

Nope, I'd guess that's quite common.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:27 pm

citizenJA wrote:I consider myself left-leaning politically and I support the UK remaining in the EU.
Is this unusual?

I would hope not!

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:34 pm

And anybody will be able to sue the government for not buying their stuff?

I find that very unlikely.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:35 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:I consider myself left-leaning politically and I support the UK remaining in the EU.
Is this unusual?
I would hope not!

Thank you and StephenDolan both for replying.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:37 pm

I hadn't looked at the Guardian politics blog in ages.
Today's Readers' Edition is interesting.
I don't understand the dynamics of it, who's for what or against.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 05 Feb, 2016 4:38 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:And anybody will be able to sue the government for not buying their stuff?

I find that very unlikely.

I don't.