The Market has "death panels" too

The American anti-healthcare right has been making a big fuss about "death panels". According to Sarah Palin a system where a panel of people decide whether society can afford to pay for your health care costs is "downright evil". Guido backs her up stating that NICE has a limit of £30,000 per year for a "quality year of life". So a Nationalised, single payer system does have death panels. This is true. It can't keep everyone alive at exorbitant cost if it can't afford to. Its very unfortunate. But so is people getting ill in the first place. So are many things.

Now, what would a free market insurance system do? Well there'd be no social value placed upon the cost of treatment, but still lots of people would not be able to afford treatment for one "quality year of life" at much less than £30,000. So they would be denied treatment because they don't have enough money. That's their "death panel".

In both systems some treatments for some people are too expensive. In the market system these people are chosen according to their wealth and economic clout. In the State system we're all covered up to a certain level (£30,000) and the wealthy can still pay more if necessary.

"Death panels" are inevitable in both systems. Unless you think wealth is a measure of moral character and worth then State system is far less arbitrary and "evil" in its application of "death panels". It is governed by what we can collectively afford.

Guido, stop giving succour to these unpleasant loons.

What qualifies Catherine Ashton to be EU Foreign Minister?

Now that Blair is out of the picture Brown is pushing Baroness Ashton to be EU Foreign Minister. I really hope that this is merely a bargaining position so that the UK gets to keep a key economic brief in the Commission (i.e. Trade). Even if it is, its bloody embarrassing. What makes Ashton a good candidate? Lets take a brief look at her CV.
1998 - 2001 - Chaired the Hertfordshire Health Authority
2001 - PUS in the Dept. Education and skills
2002 - Sure Start Minister
2004 - PUS Dept. Constitutional Affairs, brief covering National Archives and Public Guardianship Office
2007 - Leader of the House of Lords
2008 - EU Trade Commissioner, replacing Mandleson

Hmm. Doesn't look particularly well qualified to be Trade Commissioner, as was pointed out at the time of her appointment. Does she not only have a wide and deep knowledge of the EU, the other 26 member states, but also foreign affairs? Britain has many better candidates than her. Chris Patten, Miliband (D), Ming Campbell, Paddy Ashdown, Malcolm Rifkind are all greatly superior, regardless of your political viewpoint. Even bloody Tristan Garel-Jones is probably better qualified.

I can only find one thing in her favour: her husband runs yougov, which is great.


A prize to anyone who can think of a good reason to support her.



Update:

Quite a few people had read this post not long after it was posted, so I checked out where the readers were coming from. Lots from people googling Catherine Ashton. Good. People are finding out about her. More than one search said "Catherine Ashton Jewish conspiracy" or similar. Bad. There really are some loons out there, and one or two might be reading this now.
P.S. anti-semitic nutters can calm down the Jews aren't foisting Ashton on you

Update:

Well she's got it. What a fucking farce.

Why are the Liberal Democrats not making the liberal case for immigration

I just watched last night's Question Time and was appalled by Julia Goldsworthy's inability to make the positive case for immigration. Worse still, she engaged in the same mealy mouthed rubbish that Chris Huhne spouted during the Nick Griffin Question Time farce. Mumbling about points systems, exit counting, internal migration is not enough. If a woman in the audience can clearly make the case in 30 seconds why immigration is not a "bad issue" (only 2% of social homes have immigrants in them; immigration comes and goes (2008 saw net exit), why can't the Lib Dems. Stop being scared of the Daily Mail/Sun vote like Brown. Not only are there plenty of voters in the country who are pro-imigration, but the party has a duty, being philosophically pro-immigration, to make that case to the country. This constant scare mongering and non-support of immigrant seriously negatively affects our society, not just for those who some view as "strangers", but for a significant proportion of the rest of us. Come on Goldsworthy, Huhne and our other spokespeople show the courage of your convictions. Stop running scared.

I spoke too soon - Labour are still rubbish

So I like mutuals but I still can't stand Brown and the majority of New Labour. Having been relentlessly attacked by Murdoch's Sun, Brown is sucking up to the school yard bully by telling him that he's got cool clothes, a great punch, and is the best at football. Murdoch shouldn't be supported or held in "high regard". He wields way too much power in the democratic process. He should lose some of his undue power, not have his ego stroked. Brown, you are a spinless scared child.

Better late than never - Mutualized public services after only 12 years of waiting

Holy fuck. The Labour government are doing something which doesn't involve attacking immigrants (grrr Gordon), taking Liberties or people's broadband connections. Mutualized public services? With actual local control? Run by the workers and the users? Maybe even a bit of co-production? I'm completely taken aback. Labour have produced something, finally, that makes you remember why they're a great historic party with some remaining committed suporters.

I've got to have a cup of tea. This is too much. Mutuals are good. They'll lower costs. Improve services. Give greater control to the end user and the frontline staff. I mean... wow. Good stuff. From New Labour. WTF. Maybe they're not totally dead, burried, finished, over, expired, and ex left of centre party.

At this rate they might scrap ID cards and Trident, stop bullying immigrants, not collude in rendition, incentivise cooperative ownership structures in the private as well as public sector. They won't. But they could. That would be a manifesto. An actual manifesto. Of policies. That would do something. None of this "we helped 200 businesses with their cash flow in a recession and the Tories are nasty toffs". We could get a proper manifesto. It's probably too much to ask. But we can but hope. Distinctive, cooperative based, Labour policies, a hung Parliament, and a Lib-Lab coalition is probably the best thing we can hope for right now. Unless Labour changes we won't touch them, and it looks like most of the electorate won't either.

Appointing and electing Ministers

There are two major problems with the current system of Prime Ministerial patronage for the appointment of Government Ministers. Firstly, as research from demos shows (pdf) the average time spent in a position by a minister is a pathetic 1.3 years. How can somebody fully get to grips with their department, or role within it, in such a short space of time? It pushes ministers not only towards short termism, but dealing solely with departmental and self PR. When the ministers are so transitory, no wonder the Sir Humphrey stereotype exists. Secondly, we, the electorate, get to vote for a basket of policies once every five years. Voters might, quite reasonably, like a Tory welfare policy, but a Labour health policy, and a LibDem foreign policy. But they don't get this choice. Not only does it create a democratic deficit in decision making, but it pushes voters towards appraising governments not on what they'll do but on presentation, as that is the only real choice that is given to them. Hence, all the hostility towards Brown, which is mainly based on him appearing like a dithering wierdo, not the gaping black hole of an agenda.

I suggest two approaches to dealing with these two problems. Firstly, any manifesto should have a commitment to having ministers in one post for an average of 2.5 years, perhaps with an interim target of 2 years. Secondly, and more controversially, we should introduce elections for certain cabinet positions. These elections would have to strike a balance between having a coherent government that can work together and the narrower issue by issue (department by department) democracy. We could start with the Foreign Secretary. This is a distinct area of policy, on which the British public should have a direct say. Therefore, I propose a 3 part electoral college using Single Transferable Vote. 10% is given to the PM. The electorate's vote is carved up by constituency in line with turnout, with the non voters vote being given to their MPs. So, for example, if a 3 member STV constituency of 280,000 voters had a 50% turn out then the other 140,000 votes are divided between the 3 MPs. Thus, those with an interest in foreign policy can state their preference, whilst those who do not feel the need to vote can still be represented by their MP. Elections would be held every 4 years on election day (first thursday in May, or coinciding with the EU Parliament elections), but the PM could call for a new election 2 years after the last one if he felt that he could not work with the Foreign secretary.


What do you think? General criticisms tend to be along the anti-democratic lines that foreign policy is the prerogative of the government, which is in effect the monarch. Or that it might cause rifts within government.
I clearly do think the People should have a say in foreign policy. As for the rift argument, I think its either not a huge deal, or a good thing. Take the 2005 general election. Labour would be re-elected but possibly with Ming Campbell as Foreign Secretary with a mandate to withdraw from Iraq immediately. I see no problem with this. Its democratic and it reasserts the FCO over No. 10 in foreign affairs.