Be Excellent To Each Other

Shots!

Craster's buying!

Sambuca or tequila?

Shots etiquette always makes me laugh. I simply must have my Poker shots glass when doing these at home (er, as you do, natch)

Actual sensible article about the pigfucker
http://theleveller.org/2015/09/british-really-laughing/

Hmm... Tough call. I've seen a few of the headlines, and mist seem to be suggesting a story along the lines of 'Ashcroft's revenge on PM as he publishes salacious accusations' rather than 'David Canerin put willy in dead pig's mouth', so not a very compatible narrative.

It crops up in vaguaries in the side columns if a few spreads, but it would be nothing like the full colour photo mock-up and headline smashing that would have followed if it had been Corbyn. This is the PM, to pretend the allegations are just a small story is ridiculous and looks ridiculous to most. I don't want to read about it, but the press bias, even in the BBC which just makes me feel so sad, is really bothersome.

I always trusted the BBC news above all other outlets. Thesezlastvfew weeks have taken that trust away from me. I saw a big online petition calling for the BBC to start referring to Canerin as 'The right-wing Prime Minister' in the same way as Corbyn is the 'left wing Labour Leader', which I hadn't considered before.

That's up to him, I guess

Go for Flatliners!

(Sambuca, then a couple of drops of tabasco sauce, then tequila layered on top, if you didn't know.)

Sensible article..? Lol. Listen, I'm laughing long and loud at this, whether it's true or not (I have my doubts personally; naked revenge is never a pleasant thing to behold), and TL;DR etc., but plucking out the last paragraph:



I'm sorry, but what hysterical, demonstrably laughable pish. Thatcher, a greengrocer's daughter from a modest middle class background (and a woman) got to be PM in the Seventies, which is more progressive than pretty much anywhere else in the world I can think of offhand. John Major, her successor (and subsequently elected), hailed from an even more humble background. This shrill, pathetic narrative, trying to make so much more of something that just isn't (and so easily demolished in one sentence), is both utterly predictable and completely tiresome.

So no, I think you'll find, young Lewie, that most people (who aren't glowering, bitter, unreconstructed Corbynite socialists and/or chip-on-shoulder SNP types) are laughing simply because the idea of anyone allegedly sticking their private parts into a dead pig's head is gross-out funny.

Oh man, I believe I've had them before. I don't think it ended well, either for me or the bathroom.

If only it were possible to disagree with someone without being condescending!

S'alright, son. I forgive you your idealism and youth.

I'm more concerned about the relationship between Cameron and Ashcroft than what he did or didn't do as a student.
The main issues:

i. Did Cameron and previous leaders know about his dodgy tax arrangements before ennobling him?
ii. Did Ashcroft seriously think that he could buy his way into power?

As for bias issues, I still trust the BBC over other news organisations. Yes, they have their faults but the others tend to be worse - let those without sin cast the first stones and all that.

I'd agree it's a bit hysterical but I think there's a point there. Things can change for the worse. Your objection and mention of the seventies blithely assumes that we are moving towards a meritocratic society rather than away from one. But when I look at the number of Etonians who are all from a little circle of friends on the front benches I'd hesitate to agree. I think it's got worse since the old days.

The BBC are also facing an existential threat from those who people are asking them to stand up to.

Well he was offered a job, just not the one he wanted. He was able to buy his way into power.

One (or in this case, two) swallows don't make it summer. Are there any current Tory frontbenchers (or Labour ones from a month ago) that didn't come from money and privilege? How many of them studied PPE at Oxford -- half? More? How many have inherited serious wealth? This isn't a meritocracy.

And then had a tantrum and flounched when it wasn't what he wanted.

Oh sure, I'm certainly not suggesting there is *no* advantage conferred by having 'the right school tie' etc. in the UK, in 2015. It's clearly well on the wane, though (and far better than many other countries' equivalent; we don't exactly have a monopoly on nepotism I can assure you), and the specific, quoted assertions of that piece were clearly garbage.

Hang on, he sounds right up my street!

That piece was talking specifically about prime ministers, but yeah, I take your point.

Personally I think it sucks, but it doesn't help that the State education system churns out such poorly-educated people. Bring back the bloody Grammar Schools and grant-maintained degrees, I say.

This touches on something I feel very strongly about. Part of the problem is state schools not encouraging able students to apply to Oxbridge in first place. The universities and colleges spend a lot of time and money trying to broaden their intake but if people aren't applying or are deterred by the newspaper accounts of the exploits of the privileged few rather than investigating what the place is really like they're never going to increase the proportion of state educated students.

(The fact I did PPE and am not in the cabinet might or might not be proof of the meritocracy in action... )

Be careful what you wish for. Just one solitary Grammar School in Shropshire managed to produce Me, Bobbyaro and Jeremy Corbyn!

Actually, that's a pretty good advert for them.
Nothing wrong with intellectual dissent, debate and argument as far as I'm concerned; I'll take that over leering, gurning apathy any day of any week.

That's a bit harsh

You've met me though, right?

I didn't say you were wrong

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.