The future of Government (if any)

[Alan H]

Lansley shoved out, demoted!

But in his place, we now have someone who believes in homeopathy, is anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research and who has stated that the NHS was a 60-year-old mistake and that it should be dismantled.

Then there's the new Culture Secretary (which includes the equalities brief), Maria Miller, who voted:

Against gay adoption rights
Against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology that would give lesbian couples the ability to receive fertility treatment
Against the process of Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
In favour of defining homophobia, racial hatred and prejudice as simply just 'freedom of speech'
And possibly anti-abortion.

And, if that wasn't bad enough, Gove remains as Education Secretary.

What a shambles.

[Alan H]

And we have an avowed anti-secularism Sayeeda Warsi as Minister for Faith and Communities.

Would the last person leaving the UK, please switc... No, wait. It's only the rich who emigrate when they don't like things, isn't it?

[Alan H]

And we have Chris Grayling as Justice Secretary.

Yes, that's the same Chris Grayling who said that bed and breakfasts run by Christians should be allowed to turn away gay couples because of their sexuality.

[Alan C.]

Independence for Scotland cant come soon enough!

[Altfish]

Not a good day for secularism.

[Alan H]

Or rationalism. Or evidence-based medicine. Or women's rights. Or human rights.

[Dave B]

Hope all this gets blogged wide and often!

[Alan C.]

At least the token female Muslim has got the push.
Does she get to keep her "Baroness-ship" and sit in the Lords? Genuine question.

[Dave B]

And we have an avowed anti-secularism Sayeeda Warsi as Minister for Faith and Communities.

Looks like you missed that bit Alan C.!

Alan H., where did you get that from, I can't find owt about it at the moment - perhaps her new appointment is too far down the pecking order for the media to make much of?

Later: ah, found it:

11:53 Following Sayeeda Warsi's removal as Conservative co-chairman, it's been announced that she will take up a new dual role as senior Foreign Office minister and minister for faith and communities. She will continue to attend cabinet.

Above links to a good event-by event chronology

[Alan C.]

Following Sayeeda Warsi's removal as Conservative co-chairman, it's been announced that she will take up a new dual role as senior Foreign Office minister and minister for faith and communities. She will continue to attend cabinet.

Jesus wept! Is all I can say.

[Nick]

At least the token female Muslim has got the push.
Does she get to keep her "Baroness-ship" and sit in the Lords? Genuine question.

'Fraid so.


And "faith and communities". Dunno which of those infuriates me more....

[Alan H]

Tut, tut...

Google blacklists websites run by family of Grant Shapps

Google has blacklisted a network of websites run by the family of the newly promoted Tory party co-chairman, Grant Shapps, for breaching its rules on copyright infringement. A string of at least 19 sites run by the wife, sister or 75-year-old mother of Shapps have been banned from carrying Google's adverts and been relegated to the bottom of its search results.

[Dave B]

The worms are crawling out of the can . . .

[Nick]

When the best opposition that can be mustered is Wallace, even Gromit seems tempting and aspirational....

[Alan H]

The worms are crawling out of the can . . .

You mean they are not showing entrepreneurial spirit, taking risks, creating much needed jobs, looking to the future, providing growth and tax revenues for the Cayman Islands Inland Revenue? Don't we need many more like that to get us out of the mess the bankers last administration left us with?

[Nick]

As the parent company of The Grauniad is loosing about £100,000 a day, and has only survived so far thanks to the tax-dodging treatment of the sale of it's fortuitously capitalist subsidiary Auto Trader, I don't think we need to be too concerned about moral lessons from such tax-avoiding, loss-making hacks, do you? Let alone economic ones....

It's days are numbered, especially as it can no longer rely on revenue from ads for public sector MacJobs.....

Disappointed?

No, not really.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But in his place, we now have someone who believes in homeopathy [...]

It's fairly interesting to ask what he believes — or believed, as I have seen it suggested that his views have changed.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomch ... thy-works/

Thank you very much for your letter regarding EDM 1240 in support of Homeopathic Hospitals. I appreciate that you are disappointed that I added my name to this motion, and read your comments on this issue with interest.

I understand that it is your view that homeopathy is not effective, and therefore that people should not be encouraged to use it as a treatment. However I am afraid that I have to disagree with you on this issue. Homeopathic care is enormously valued by thousands of people and in an NHS that the Government repeatedly tells us is "patient-led" it ought to be available where a doctor and patient believe that a homeopathic treatment may be of benefit to the patient.

I am grateful to you for taking the time to write with your concerns. I realise that my answer will be a disappointing one for you, but I hope that the letter helps to clarify my view.

He answers the criticism that homeopathy is not effective, when the point made seems to be that is not efficacious — it will not cure what ails you, even if it gets you out of the GP's surgery.

I rather liked this:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/0 ... c?sbsrc=md

There is zero scientific evidence homeopathy works. Absolutely none.

Wrong. Your problem is in your definition of "works". Works mean achieves some goal you were trying to reach, and perhaps the goal you are thinking of is not the one NHS is trying to reach. Their job is not to cure everyone of everything. Their job is to *control expenses* while *minimizing complaints*. And it is very likely that providing homeopathy will help achieve those goals. Therefore it "works". Remember, even the homeopathy supporters admit that often treatments do not contain even a single molecule of the diluted substance. (cite [wikipedia.org] ) I cannot think of a more cost effective treatment than water, maybe with a bit of food coloring. Even a small reduction in whining would make it cost effective. From an institutional health perspective it's pure genius!

Brutally cynical and to the point. What is effective and efficient need not be efficacious. But as long as we take seriously the illiterate and mendacious buffoons who confuse one effing word with another, things will get no better.

[Alan H]

Tut, tut, tut.

Grant Shapps altered school performance entry on Wikipedia

New Tory party chairman Grant Shapps deleted O-level entry and information about donors to his private office

The Observer has established that Shapps deleted a whole range of information from the online encyclopedia, including, curiously, a reference to his time at Watford grammar school for boys where the site had claimed he "obtained four O-levels including an A in CDT". Without revealing his identity, in contravention of the Wikipedia code of conduct, Shapps justified his edits as the removal of politically slanted or unreferenced "info" and by claiming "content must be verifiable".

[Alan H]

What is effective and efficient need not be efficacious. But as long as we take seriously the illiterate and mendacious buffoons who confuse one effing word with another, things will get no better.

I think a lot of people use either word interchangeably (and I'm sure I have at times). But I'm sure many quacks either don't know the difference or don't care.

I'll need to go away and look it up, but I think the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee in their Evidence check on homeopathy, said something about effective v efficacious. I'm not sure I remember it very well, so I'll find it first...

[Lord Muck oGentry]

What is effective and efficient need not be efficacious. But as long as we take seriously the illiterate and mendacious buffoons who confuse one effing word with another, things will get no better.

I think a lot of people use either word interchangeably (and I'm sure I have at times). But I'm sure many quacks either don't know the difference or don't care.

I'll need to go away and look it up, but I think the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee in their Evidence check on homeopathy, said something about effective v efficacious. I'm not sure I remember it very well, so I'll find it first...

Alan, you are quite right about the Select Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /45/45.pdf
See page 9.

As for your own use of the words, I suspect you are doing yourself an injustice.

If, by the bye, you catch me ranting about submanagerialist illiterate bullshit you have my permission to restrain me until the fit passes.