Be Excellent To Each Other

Topically, I just saw this on Twitter, sourced from The Guardian:

I'm getting a weird sense of deja vu that I may have posted this before, but here's a timely quote from The Young Ones:

Yes, but the specific example that I was responding to was for British Prime Ministers.

More generally, though, no-one would deny this (and I hate it btw, especially as someone who went to a very ropey comprehensive school that was placed in 'special measures' some years after I attended, such things weren't even properly monitored in my day). Why do you think this, above all else, has been my clarion call for however many years you've known me here? I want young people to have a far better education that I did (and, ironically/tragically, my parents also received before the useless political ideologues got their teeth into our education system - their own kids excluded of course, to this very day)

Money, class, privilege, nepotism, all the enemies of meritocracy. We in the UK rightly beat ourselves up over these things time and again, but is it really any better elsewhere in Europe, US and elsewhere? I'm not so sure.

As for 'career politicians', we should introduce a law that, unless you've been in good employment for at least 10 years in a *real* and significant job, don't even think about becoming an MP. Why on earth do we want such a clueless so-called ruling and political class?

Trouble then becomes how you define a 'real' job? Working in Tesco? The army? Owning a business selling dildos on the internet? The criteria is hard to quantify.

It's not a shock or a surprise to pull out statistics that shows private education tends to result in greater success in more prestigious roles. Do you really expect this to be different? That, if you can pay for a more focussed, dedicated type of education it confers skills that give you advantage over people not educated privately. Obviously you'd expect that, otherwise what are you paying for?

So is the complaint one of nepotism? There's a secret society of sorts funnelling people into the top jobs regardless of whether they've the skills for it because daddy paid for Eton and knows the right people? Is that widespread? Demonstrable? Genuinely interested to see that evidence.

Or is it that paying for better education is intrinsically unfair? People must not be allowed to pay for private education, that they need to have a generic experience regardless of their background because that's the only fair way of doing it?

Having come from a humble and average school in Wales, followed by the local college in the local town, I don't have strong feelings about it. I've actually had two girlfriends that have been privately educated at good schools, and I know their parents struggled to afford it but wanted to do so in the name of giving their kids the best possible start. It hasn't conferred incredible success on them. One is a Dr. who, while fabulously intelligent, earns less than little old me, and the other works in admin at a golf club on a very average wage. No nepotism there.

I think rather the solution should be focussed on selection panels - strict controls ensuring anonymity. No hint of what school you attended, who you are, who your parents are. Nothing identifiable. Just the grades, a personal statement, and interview. How could this be fairer? Again, genuine question if we're done with the comedy of pig jokes.

Aye, not suggesting you feel any different. Was reinforcing my point, was all.

I think in the case of politics, this very much does appear to be the case. One primary issue is that if you want to be an MP, short of standing as in independent, you have to be a candidate for a party. And the party get to choose the candidates, based on any criteria they wish to. Candidates aren't employees of a party, there are no employee regulations allowing for challenging decisions, employment tribunals, fair treatment etc. Party income comes pretty much solely from donors. If your big donors want Jimmy to be an MP, well you're just not going to say no, are you? I'd be astonished if there wasn't extreme amounts of nepotism in a setup like that.

And the public school part of that is mainly just a funnel into that setup, to my mind. I have no issue with public schools or the way they function, but it seems they inherently lead to this kind of social pooling where you're either on the fast track or not, and that's how it works.

O/T

Now see, on the other hand, it's stuff like this that makes me shudder inside, and wonder whether my entire ideology is correct after all:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34320413

Also, I'm struggling to think of a more 'punchable' face

Yep that is true, I meant to cover that. Typically, and certainly for the Tories, candidate selection will be made by the local Conservative association using whatever criteria they want. There are numerous examples of candidates being parachuted into safe seats because it's been predetermined that they're going to be an MP.

So the question in respect to politics - what to do about that? It's this same kind of system however that gets people like Mhairi Black elected on an MP, standing on the life experience of being a fouth-mouthed student on Twitter and an SNP faithful who can trot out the party line to a tee. No '10 years in proper job' criteria suggestion for her and everyone thinks she's oh so brave and fantastic. This chuff does spin both ways, and is seemingly only forgiven here because the nepotism didn't come from wealth.

Someone elsewhere suggested putting him into a tree shredder feet first, which I think is entirely fair.

I learnt this week that Volvo actually gave away the 3 point seat belt patent so others could use it.

Without actually knowing all of the economics of the drug in question, if he really is investing the profits into the company and new drug development then I dont have a real problem with it...or I should say no more of a problem I have with it than any other pharma company and the price(s) they charge for drugs

WHERE IS YOUR INVISIBLE HAND NOW

Apparently, what happened was: the market for this drug isn't large, so it could only support a couple of providers; the providers merged so now they have a monopoly and can charge whatever they want to their now-captive market. It's apparently a thing in pharmaceuticals now. Costs of entry i.e. tooling a manufacturing line for a drug isn't easy, cheap, or quick so this appears unlikely to change.

Hi, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

He's a former hedge fund manager, I doubt he got into pharmaceuticals for the philanthropic angles.

Didn't that come more out of a party that found itself expanding so massively that its only real option to actually put candidates in elections was basically to take anyone willing to do it and who showed some degree of popular following? I'll be interested to see what happens to the party's MPs over the next 20 years or so - will it become more establishment, or continue to be more outlandish?

Assuming Scotland doesn't cite artistic differences and embark on a solo career, the SNP would be the only party where leaving Westminster and going to Holyrood would be career progression for anyone wanting executive office.

While I appreciate your offer Ill politely decline.

Clearly he is a businessman...however there is a difference between growing a company and developing new products, and with that investing to acheive those growths in whatever angle you are aiming for and simply flogging one product line at a higher cost.

If you take what he says on face value, they are planning to syphon profits from a mis-managed product into R&D

If you know anything about drug discovery and development you will appreciate how much R&D budgets are, the attrition rate of compounds in development, the serious impact of losing drugs from the pipeline at phase II and phase III in particular, and therefore the need to charge what is deemed by the lamen as as very high cost for the eventual product that hits the market. The only difference here is that rather than this being a new compound, they are re-evaluating an existing one and feel it was under-valued, and could be sold at a higher price compared to its competitors.

One could also be a cynic and say he is just flogging one product for as long as he can get away with it (basically, until a generic is produced) to make some short cash.
I guess you'd have to be privy for how much the company, Turing, bought the license for. Unless it was extremely little, he has lets say a few months before someone ramps up production of a publicly-available design at generic-level pricing.

Of course the headline here is some shock that a drug company wants to make a profit and the guy seems like a smarmy bastard.

Surely it's the dictionary definition of abusing a monopoly? You have a product, that people cannot do without, that they can't get from anyone else, and you raise the price by 5000%. What you plan to do with the money is pretty much neither here nor there.

It's a 60 year old generic drug that doesn't need any real R&D, but they have created a barrier to entry. They can whack the cost up, and if anyone goes to challenge them by sinking in capital to make the drug, then they can drop down again, undercut the competitor and laugh. Then nobody will compete with them again.

Since everyone knows this is what they will do, they get away with it.

In the meantime, people get ill and/or die.

Apparently this chap has been in trouble before by siphoning pharma money to pay for hedge fund debts.

Honestly, I wish I owned a pharma company, i'd give the drugs away free forever just to screw with that guy.

Surely something like this you want funded by government, or at the very least licenced, then when a company does something like this it can be investigated, and if deemed appropriate, they lose their licence.

You'd go bust very quickly

Well it would certain beat perennial impotence at Westminster.

I can see the argument about why a *new* drug would have a high initial cost to offset R&D. But an established product where the rights have already been traded? Pure opportunism, and the guy is an horrific cunt. Any promises along the lines of helping people in future with the money does not justify fucking over people that absolutely need the drug at that cost right now

This *actually* made me laugh

Good grief!

On social strata:

It is possible here (Shipley/Saltaire) to go somewhere for a night out and there are 3 different prices: Unemployed, low waged and high waged as cover and for drinks at the bar.

It isn't clear what the boundaries are, though.

House of Commons to debate a petition about immigration on 19 October. The motion, 'that this House has considered an e-petition relating to immigration', is a little less harsh than that of the petition itself.

Interesting interview of Jim Murphy in the New Statesman regarding this new 'post truth' era of UK politics that we've been discussing.

https://archive.is/kjRZ5

I can't decide if this is a new phenomenon or if Twitter/sinister Facebook/etc is just amplifying existing tribalisms. Either way, I find it depressing that people are increasingly willing to shout down or even block people from giving opposing views rather than engaging or respecting that, deep down, they might care about the same issues and want the same result (better schools, people lifted out of poverty, a safe country etc) but want the approach to be different. We haven't yet polarised to the extent of the US where it seems the other team are almost evil traitors, but I do worry.

Amusingly, reading below the line on 'Wings over Somerset' (I know I shouldn't), some are accusing him of living in an echo-chamber and ignoring realities....

Oh, I agree entirely regarding polarisation; 'blocking' someone on Twitter or wherever is just so much easier than having to face a challenging debate, opposing views, compelling scrutiny and/or evidence, or whatever. Until very recently I'd never blocked/ignored anyone, and most certainly never for someone merely disagreeing with my politics. I think it's *good* to have people disagree with you and test your ideas (and yes, mine are frequently found wanting )

As for our old mate Stu, well, what can I say eh?
One thing's for certain, he's made a damn good living from it, plenty of people seem prepared to pay vast sums of money for this stuff. IMO that's no different to what the tabloid press have been doing for years.

For me the most disappointing aspect on that score was that guy who challenged the 'wee blue book' but from what little I saw (admittedly), seemed to just get provoked into abuse/slanging match and any debate was lost. I'd like to see a straight debate between Stu and his knowledgeable detractors on this score, but I doubt we ever will.

Heh. So, Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow FARMING Minister appears to have suggested comparing meat-eaters to smokers...?



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/a ... arthy.html

Ah, with people like that sticking up for our farming industry, who needs enemies?

So then, we've got a Shadow Chancellor who wants to 'foment the overthrow of the Capitalist system', and a Shadow Farming Minister who seems to think consumers of British meat are social lepers or similar, ripe for berating and "social reprogramming", presumably. All jolly good stuff, eh.

Frankly, it's all enough to make me want to eat a dirty great juicy, rare British beef burger in her presence, or perhaps indulge in a plateful of rare roast Welsh black beef rib with (goosefat) roasties and Yorkshire pud, dripping generously with a good, rich meat gravy. Whilst running a hedge fund, naturally, for that idiot McDonnell's benefit.

I know it's a propaganda sheet and that we trade with a lot of dodgy regimes, but reading reports of stories that Osborne is praised for 'not stressing human rights' issues still makes me a little uncomfortable.



'And other than that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?' comes to mind.

I know I'll be derided as a massive cynic here, but seriously, what else was he supposed to do? Osborne is over there to drum up business, jobs and business ties for the UK, no more, no less. So if that's the objective, and it very plainly is, it's a good idea not to piss off your (very powerful) host by banging on about things where we have nil influence anyway? He's sticking to his clear, constructive agenda, objectives and diplomatic narrative, like a grownup. Just like the rest of us have to do in the real, business world, all the time.

Osborne's job is to get US jobs, which by all accounts it looks like he might achieve, by being gracious, polite and humble in the presence of his hosts. Good on him, I say. (Can anyone imagine Obsorne's opposite number, that bellend McDonnell, belming, blundering and offending his way across China on UK plc's behalf...? The mind boggles; we'd be lucky to sell so much as a stick of wood to them after that)

Oh I know. You don't criticise the host's wife at a dinner party, after all. I'm enough of a cynic or realist to understand why he's doing it (and I'm a free trader anyway) but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth especially when you read about the government encouraging 'British values' domestically.

Of course, praising him for not raising it is probably drawing attention to it more than not mentioning it in the first place.

Exactly, otherwise why even go in the first place.



It's just the old sixth form idealism vs. realpolitik thing that's been fueling arguments and threads like this since the WoS days (and frankly before even that, as Hearthly will testify). Yes, it would be lovely if we could wave a magic wand and stop all the evil and nastiness in the world, yes it would be fantastic to remove every last trace of hypocrisy and double standards from every single position and stance our government takes, but you know it isn't going to happen so we might as well make the best, and most of it. Frankly this pragmatism and fundamental realism about what's what is the keystone of my entire politics, which have been borne out time and again. We're becoming a nation of Caveys and, Scotland aside, voting accordingly...



Well yes, there is that. But it was the Chinese, not the British, who raised this, so that's OK with me, objectives (hopefully) achieved and maintained.

This will all sound very cynical to some here, because it basically is, but people need to wake up and smell the coffee. Apart from anything else, the UK is a pretty minor league world player these days and we need to start being realistic about that, too.

On cynicsm: What Saudi Arabia should do right now is to say "The crush that killed over 700 people was a sign from Allah that life is precious " and then use that to quietly step down from beheading and crucifying that teenager which is causing a then a huge reputations headache. They can retain their pious reputation and not be seen to be bowing to external pressure.

Well, it's a tough life being on the UN Human Rights Council.

I'd also like then to stop bombing Sanaa. W erytime it appears on my twitter news feed I check to see when someone I know there last logged on to Facebook.

while telling the idiots that I can't stand that they're twats

stupid bitch

Unfortunatly she does have a point. We may not like it, but if everyone in the world ate as much beef, lamb, pork, chicken etc as we did in the west, there would not be enough farmland to cope.

She absolutely has a point. Saying it seems a bit like career suicide, but the farmers have been getting fucked over for decades anyway.

I'd like to keep eating my inefficient delicious meat, please.

You don't have to eat meat, that's fine, but you can fuck off with your proselytising about your vegetarian/veganism.

I love meat as much as the next man

But we should be being encouraged to eat less of it. It's bad for us, it's bad for the environment, and with the rate of growth of the population it's not sustainable.

It's not nice to hear, but it's where we should be heading, I wouldn't be surprised if in 50-100 years time, we'll be considered barbarians for eating animals, in the same sort of way as wearing fur, watching a bull fight, cock fight, dog fight, going on a fox hunt, whale hunt etc is considered today.

Meh. Whilst I certainly would agree that tarring meat-eaters as some class of social miscreant overdue for 'PC reprogramming' is utter tosh of itself (not least because we're omnivores, have canines and are DESIGNED to eat meat), for me the main issue was that she said all of these things, on record, as the Shadow FARMING MINISTER...?

Man alive, just how wet behind the ears do you have to be? She's only been in the job mere days!

What's next I wonder? The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer saying he's fomenting the destruction of Capitalism? Oh wait.

What a clueless bunch of dicks. Not that I care, mind, because I'm shortly flying out for a week on a lovely sunny Greek isle, so laterz guys!!

we are designed to eat meat, we are not designed to have 7billion+ of us at the top of the food chain.

I am sure you are aware that normally it's a food pyramid.

How big does the pyramid need to be if there are 7 billion people at the top of it?

Oh, and, we're designed to eat some meat, like one or two meals a week. Not one or two meals a day.

Do farmers only produce meat?