[Archived] Election

[Kelbo]

I will just say this, if the conservatives win the election, watch two things happen almost immediately, firstly, sterling will strengthen against other currencies and other countries confidence in the UK will grow!

That is always the case and it will be this time!

[Paul]

Here is an interesting little tool to match your attitudes to the parties.

Interestingly, when the lifelong Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan did it, he came out more Lib Dem than Tory!

I scored 75% on the Lib Dem scale.

Lib Dem 53%

Labour 40%

Cons 30%

Hmmmmmmm.............

[den]

And you say these pharmaceutical companies spend millions on R&D for these drugs yet in the same breath mention the astronomical amount it will cost the health service to provide it? Surely this indicates they won't be making such a big loss on these drugs after all? These companies are not charities; if they have no hope of making a profit they would not be developing these drugs in the first place.

you don't grasp the facts TGM.

The drug I'm on cost millions to develop. It was the first ever targeted cancer drug. It was developed for this particular cancer simply because they knew the cause of this cancer was the philadelphia+ chromosome. Knowing the cause gave them the basis to develop the first ever targeted drug, meaning that they could actually demonstrate that the drug was the first ever drug that left good cells alone, while killing the cancerous cells and thus allowed the docs to give an effective dose. This drug was developed for one of the rarer cancers, hence the income from the sale of it wont go anywhere near to covering their R&D costs. £24000/year for a matter of a few hundred patients doesn't allow them to recover anywhere near their costs - which could have been hundreds of millions of pounds.

You also don't see why the drugs companies would do that. Well it's because once they have proven that this type of approach can work for one cancer, then they know it can work for others. They will move on to finding the markers for other cancers [as the ph+ chromosome was for my illness]and developing more drugs of the same type, but for much more common cancers, thus allowing them to make profits on the next generation of drugs because they will sell many more of that type of drug, because there are many more patients. This is how medical research works.

TGM, you have a broad idea of these things, but not enough facts. I could explain to you how NICE

1] rejected the doctors and drug companies evidence at the NICE appraisal hearing, that they had gathered by evaluating the responses of the patients already on the drugs. The reason they rejected it was because they said the doctors evidence could have been swayed by the drugs companies. In effect, the doctors could have bribed the doctors.

2] Having rejected the evidence, they then went one step further, by suggesting that what NICE needed to evaluate these drugs was open label, double blind trials of the drug. Now - this means that they wanted one patient on one of the new drugs, one patient on the other new drug, one patient on Interferon [which was the drug previously used to treat the cancer, but had no effect in stopping the advance of the disease] and one patient on best palliative care [no treatment at all]. These patients weren't allowed to know which drug they were on, and weren't allowed to swap, or come off it.

Some points on that. 1] the patients knew the side effects of each drug and knew how each drug was taken. There's no way everyone wouldn't realise which drug they were on. 2] the patients on Interferon and best palliative care would progress to the next stage of the cancer and die.

Who was going to volunteer for these trials? The trials as I've explained were unethical and would never be carried out in this country. NICE know that and the Scientists and Doctors told them so, but it made no difference. 3] NICE then decided that due to the lack, or poor quality of the evidence so far made a very strange move. They then started making assumptions about evidence. They started deciding to put the average age of the patient at 60 years, which is totally wrong. The idea behind this being that the patients would spend the rest of their natural life on the drug before the ten year patent expired. This puts the cost/year higher than it actually is. They decided to compare the new drugs, not with the drug I'm currently on, but with Interferon, which is much cheaper, but totally ineffective against the progress of the disease. It isn't used against this cancer any more. Doing this will inevitably overprice the new drug against the other. - How wrong is that?

I could write reams about this TGM, most of which you probably wouldn't understand. The electerol point here is that the tories are saying they still need some kind of assessory body, but they would give much more weight to the doctors who are using the drugs. They would base their decisions on the drug effectiveness, rather than the cost. In other words, if the drug works, they will provide it. Vince Cable has already spoken in support of these two new drugs before the election was called. Labour seem to be happy to continue along the existing NICE system of working on a cost/life basis.

There is much more that could be said. People with relatives who are dying, even though there are drugs available that could help them, will have the same questions as me. NICE are rejecting more and more drugs for a lot of serious illnesses. It's a matter of priorities. Does the government want to treat people who are very seriously ill, or allow some of those to die and using the funds to help with tummy tucks and boob jobs of this world?

So, I agree that we need regulatory bodies, but this model isn't working. If a doctor can demonstrate that a cancer drug does indeed give good length/quality of life, the money has to be found.

If anyone feels uncomfortable with this topic, then my apologies. Time to move back to the Footy board for a few more years.

[thenodrog]

Nice try, but you've made the incorrect assumption that I'm a Lib Dem supporter.

Have I? Where?

[tony gale's mic]

you don't grasp the facts TGM.

The drug I'm on cost millions to develop. It was the first ever targeted cancer drug. It was developed for this particular cancer simply because they knew the cause of this cancer was the philadelphia+ chromosome. Knowing the cause gave them the basis to develop the first ever targeted drug, meaning that they could actually demonstrate that the drug was the first ever drug that left good cells alone, while killing the cancerous cells and thus allowed the docs to give an effective dose. This drug was developed for one of the rarer cancers, hence the income from the sale of it wont go anywhere near to covering their R&D costs. £24000/year for a matter of a few hundred patients doesn't allow them to recover anywhere near their costs - which could have been hundreds of millions of pounds.

You also don't see why the drugs companies would do that. Well it's because once they have proven that this type of approach can work for one cancer, then they know it can work for others. They will move on to finding the markers for other cancers [as the ph+ chromosome was for my illness]and developing more drugs of the same type, but for much more common cancers, thus allowing them to make profits on the next generation of drugs because they will sell many more of that type of drug, because there are many more patients. This is how medical research works.

TGM, you have a broad idea of these things, but not enough facts. I could explain to you how NICE

1] rejected the doctors and drug companies evidence at the NICE appraisal hearing, that they had gathered by evaluating the responses of the patients already on the drugs. The reason they rejected it was because they said the doctors evidence could have been swayed by the drugs companies. In effect, the doctors could have bribed the doctors.

2] Having rejected the evidence, they then went one step further, by suggesting that what NICE needed to evaluate these drugs was open label, double blind trials of the drug. Now - this means that they wanted one patient on one of the new drugs, one patient on the other new drug, one patient on Interferon [which was the drug previously used to treat the cancer, but had no effect in stopping the advance of the disease] and one patient on best palliative care [no treatment at all]. These patients weren't allowed to know which drug they were on, and weren't allowed to swap, or come off it.

Some points on that. 1] the patients knew the side effects of each drug and knew how each drug was taken. There's no way everyone wouldn't realise which drug they were on. 2] the patients on Interferon and best palliative care would progress to the next stage of the cancer and die.

Who was going to volunteer for these trials? The trials as I've explained were unethical and would never be carried out in this country. NICE know that and the Scientists and Doctors told them so, but it made no difference. 3] NICE then decided that due to the lack, or poor quality of the evidence so far made a very strange move. They then started making assumptions about evidence. They started deciding to put the average age of the patient at 60 years, which is totally wrong. The idea behind this being that the patients would spend the rest of their natural life on the drug before the ten year patent expired. This puts the cost/year higher than it actually is. They decided to compare the new drugs, not with the drug I'm currently on, but with Interferon, which is much cheaper, but totally ineffective against the progress of the disease. It isn't used against this cancer any more. Doing this will inevitably overprice the new drug against the other. - How wrong is that?

I could write reams about this TGM, most of which you probably wouldn't understand. The electerol point here is that the tories are saying they still need some kind of assessory body, but they would give much more weight to the doctors who are using the drugs. They would base their decisions on the drug effectiveness, rather than the cost. In other words, if the drug works, they will provide it. Vince Cable has already spoken in support of these two new drugs before the election was called. Labour seem to be happy to continue along the existing NICE system of working on a cost/life basis.

There is much more that could be said. People with relatives who are dying, even though there are drugs available that could help them, will have the same questions as me. NICE are rejecting more and more drugs for a lot of serious illnesses. It's a matter of priorities. Does the government want to treat people who are very seriously ill, or allow some of those to die and using the funds to help with tummy tucks and boob jobs of this world?

So, I agree that we need regulatory bodies, but this model isn't working. If a doctor can demonstrate that a cancer drug does indeed give good length/quality of life, the money has to be found.

If anyone feels uncomfortable with this topic, then my apologies. Time to move back to the Footy board for a few more years.

Den I think given my profession I have a much broader understanding of the cost pressures on the NHS than you do so I do have to take exception at the part in bold. You have anecdotal knowledge from your specific case but to claim that boob jobs and tummy tucks are regularly provided on the NHS is absolute rubbish - they're not. The only time when cosmetic surgery is given on the NHS is for burns victims, or when someone has had breast cancer and had a mastectomy on one side, then the other breast can be removed on NHS, or similar scenarios. In very, very limited circumstances more cosmetic procedures can be done but some clinical benefit has to be identified and it's always measured up against the cost.

You seem to be forgetting that many doctors are on the advisory panel of NICE, so to say that doctors should have the say would basically be pitting doctors on one side vs doctors on the other side. If you honestly think the Tories will magically find money from somewhere to pay for all these drugs any more than Labour will then I really think you're pinning your hopes a little too high. The current model of QALS takes into account drug effectiveness AND cost - both are essential to be taken into account. That's why the calculation incorporates quality of life, length of life and cost because all three are important when weighing up whether a drug can be provided. You state that drugs should be on effectiveness rather than cost but in reality you cannot just ignore cost - the NHS would haemorrhage money if it started doing that.

The bottom line is this: Did NICE handle your case badly? Very possibly, some of what you wrote doesn't sound great and the fact the appeal was won must show some acknowledgement they'd been in the wrong previously. However should we incorporate cost when deciding which drugs to provide? Absolutely - it's an essential factor to take into consideration and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the clouds when it comes to this issue.

I will just say this, if the conservatives win the election, watch two things happen almost immediately, firstly, sterling will strengthen against other currencies and other countries confidence in the UK will grow!

That is always the case and it will be this time!

Ah yes, the pound always strengthens under the Tories. Remind me which party presided over Black Wednesday again, I forget...

[Paul]

This site does something similar

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

......and this one had me in almost the exact same spot as Gandhi - one of the public figures used to example how the poll worked. I shall find some sandals and visit the cotton workers tomorrow.

[philipl]

I will just say this, if the conservatives win the election, watch two things happen almost immediately, firstly, sterling will strengthen against other currencies and other countries confidence in the UK will grow!

That is always the case and it will be this time!

We most certainly don't need a strong currency just now. A significant strengthening of the pound would be a major economic set back.

If true, and with Little Osborne as Chancellor it is debatable, that is the most convincing argument yet for not voting Tory.

[Glenn]

......and this one had me in almost the exact same spot as Gandhi - one of the public figures used to example how the poll worked. I shall find some sandals and visit the cotton workers tomorrow.

I was very close to being The Dalia Llama ... or the 1972 labour party :s

[modes98]

Nice of the Tories to put up massive billboard pictures of Gordon Brown. When your driving past all you see is him, its great advertising for Labour and not the Tories! Whoever the marketing team are deserve a medal for doing their best to mess up the polls lead they had.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

Nice of the Tories to put up massive billboard pictures of Gordon Brown. When your driving past all you see is him, its great advertising for Labour and not the Tories! Whoever the marketing team are deserve a medal for doing their best to mess up the polls lead they had.

A 20 foot picture of a grinning Brown couldn’t exactly be described as pleasant site- even for the most devout labour voter.

What is an electoral disaster is spoofing Cameron up as Gene Hunt- an absolute TV idol!.

[modes98]

A 20 foot picture of a grinning Brown couldn’t exactly be described as pleasant site- even for the most devout labour voter.

What is an electoral disaster is spoofing Cameron up as Gene Hunt- an absolute TV idol!.

I agree but surely it would make more sense to concentrate on promoting David Cameron and his image, rather than giving the Prime Minster even more advertising space.

This one? At least it is a bit funny, not enough of that thesedays although there may be some laughs at the debate on itv tonight.

[den]

You seem to be forgetting that many doctors are on the advisory panel of NICE, so to say that doctors should have the say would basically be pitting doctors on one side vs doctors on the other side. If you honestly think the Tories will magically find money from somewhere to pay for all these drugs any more than Labour will then I really think you're pinning your hopes a little too high.

OK TGM, I haven't said the tories will pay for the medicines, just that they say they will. That's a much better outlook to the people who need the drugs. The advisory panel is made up of doctors from various sphere's of the health service, not necessarily from the field that's being evaluated. They are joined on the panel by statisticians.

The current model of QALS takes into account drug effectiveness AND cost - both are essential to be taken into account. That's why the calculation incorporates quality of life, length of life and cost because all three are important when weighing up whether a drug can be provided. You state that drugs should be on effectiveness rather than cost but in reality you cannot just ignore cost - the NHS would haemorrhage money if it started doing that.

Of course cost must be taken into account, I've never said otherwise. Unfortunately, NICE are getting their balance between extra life years and cost wrong.

The bottom line is this: Did NICE handle your case badly? Very possibly, some of what you wrote doesn't sound great and the fact the appeal was won must show some acknowledgement they'd been in the wrong previously.

The drug I'm on currently on, and have been for 7 years was originally passed by NICE for use with patients who had advanced to the second stage of the cancer. Anyone who knew anything at all about this drug, knew that it wasn't effective against the cancer once it had progressed to the second stage. So, how did these doctors and statisticians arrive at that scenario? On appeal, which involved a big campaign via the media, local MP's, Cancer support groups, Consultants involved in the field and patients, they changed their mind and provided it as a first line treatment. How could they get that so wrong?

The drugs that have been refused since, are drugs that are better than the drug I'm on now and guess what, they have been refused as well. These are without doubt wonderful drugs TGM. Not drugs that cost a lot of money for a matter of a few months extra life, but drugs that extend life for decades.

Recently, the Timesand the Daily Mail has been running a campaign against the way NICE goes about it's business. I've never bought the Daily Mail in my life, but here are a few links:

NHS watchdog NICE acting against government advice, says cancer group

Betrayal of 20,000 cancer patients: Rationing body rejects ten drugs (allowed in Europe) that could have extended lives Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257944/NICE-rejects-cancer-drugs-extended-patients-lives.html#ixzz0lA2nX1Ak

Driving away Big Pharma is not NICE or clever

A new bone marrow drug alternative to chemotherapy is saving my life. So why has it been rejected by NICE? Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1261234/A-new-bone-marrow-drug-alternative-chemotherapy-saving-life-So-rejected-NICE.html#ixzz0lA46skGy

NOTW: Not very NICE

I can find you many more. There is a real problem with the way this country evaluates drugs.

Apologies to everyone for taking this to extremes, I intend to leave it here for now.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

This one? At least it is a bit funny, not enough of that thesedays although there may be some laughs at the debate on itv tonight.

I like this one aswell.

[berkshireblue]

I will just say this, if the conservatives win the election, watch two things happen almost immediately, firstly, sterling will strengthen against other currencies and other countries confidence in the UK will grow!

That is always the case and it will be this time!

100% agree

Though Red Jim wont

A hung parliament is the least desirable outcome (worse than a Tory government) as the financial markets are likely to take fright at the lack of political direction and cause a run on the pound, potentially a disaster that could derail the economic recovery. We know you don't like Labour because, like an old gramophone record, you never stop saying so.

And with your personal signature statement and reference to The Guardian it is safe to say you do

We most certainly don't need a strong currency just now. A significant strengthening of the pound would be a major economic set back.

If true, and with Little Osborne as Chancellor it is debatable, that is the most convincing argument yet for not voting Tory.

Phil lucklily you reside in Malta so dont need to worry

I will consider joining you if Brown wins!!!!!!!!!

[den]

Lib Dem 54%

Conservative 53%

Labour 47%

How very strange!

[Blue n White Rover]

Lib Dem 54%

Conservative 53%

Labour 47%

How very strange!

47% Conservative

44% Labour

37% Lib Dem

I'm 100% Labour!

[Bazzanotsogreat]

60% Conservative

34% labour

27% Lib Dem

[RibbleValleyRover]

Is everybody going to watch the first debate tonight? I can see a pretty large audience tuning in at first, but with it being 90 mins long I’m expecting a large proportion of viewers to switch off well before the broadcast ends.

Looking at the debate i think Cameron has the most to lose, he is in the lead in terms of the polls and he is expected by many to be the best performer on the night. I think a lot of people have very low expectations of Brown, if he shows a bit of personality it could give him a positive boost though if he loses his temper and starts quoting the tractor statistics then i can't see him getting anything positive out of this. For Clegg this is a good chance for him to share a stage with the two larger party's, but can he handle the pressure?

Overall I am expecting a pretty stale debate, largely due to the rules in place and the leaders will want to play it safe. Each side will say they have won on the night and the polls will not show any major changes.

[Glenn]

The funny thing about those Gene Hunt posters is in the midst of the DE Bill debate (which at the time has a nasty clause about copyright of photographs, thankfully it was later dropped) it was discovered that NEITHER party (the Torys spoofed it) had permission to use the image (even though it's trivial to find the original image and the contact details for how to obtain permission)! So, that's the first strike, 2 more and they lose their net connection?

http://www.stop43.org.uk/pages/news_files/1220ba10d4624975d12eeca26758493d-56.php

[LeChuck]

79% Lib Dem

62% Labour

26% Conservative

I know who I won't be voting for! Although I already knew that to be honest.

[American]

UK Independence Party:

61%

Conservative Party:

55%

British National Party:

42%

Liberal Democrats:

26%

Labour Party:

26%

Green Party:

22%

[broadsword]

On that political compass site, i come out as left-wing economically, and occupying the centre-ground in terms of Libertarianism vs fascism. Somewhere close to Nelson Mandela apparently.

[Billy Castell]

You can generate your own Tory posters on this site:

http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/tory.php

Here's a quick one from me:

http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/posterTory.php?textPos=1&colour=1&photo=4&userImg=1271363447.jpg&line1=I%27ve+never+voted+Tory+before%2C&line2=because+I+eat+the+pens.&logo1=BLANK&logo2=BLANK&logo3=BLANK&tagline1=Burnley&size=3

[Tango]

I can only assume that Nick Clegg keeps saying that all the parties should sit down together to formulate policies is because the Lib Dems haven't thought of any.

[RibbleValleyRover]

First debate, lot of nerves and leaders trying to play its safe. I think Clegg probably won that first one and connected well with the audience. Cameron I think played it too safe, didn't attack the Lib Dem's enough on their manifesto which was scrutinised by the Institute for Fiscal studies for being too ambitious. Brown I thought was poor, expectations were low and he met them.

I expect Lib Dems to get a poll boost, largely from the others and Labour. Conservatives will probably drop a bit.

Anyone else think we saw signs of Brown making a move towards Clegg on a possible coalition? Clegg on some occasions rebuffed him but on others they seemed to gang up on Cameron.