The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[TightEnd]

political strategy

What on earth did Osborne think he was doing on tax credits?

http://www.capx.co/what-on-earth-did-osborne-think-he-was-doing-on-tax-credits/

a really good read

[DaveShoelace]

Two huge issues, neither of which is political as such, for me are antibiotics and the concept of AI and a "post-work" society.

This, I think about this all the time. I think it is a big political issue, we could very well become a post work society where we would all need a basic state income.

Futurology is fascinating and scary, read a few decent books on it recently, one very uplifting, one very depressing.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Machine-Age-Prosperity-Technologies/dp/0393239357/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445871708&sr=1-1&keywords=new+machine+age

http://www.amazon.co.uk/BRIEF-HISTORY-OF-THE-FUTURE/dp/1611450136


What's the anti biotic stuff?

Which book would you recommend to read first?

Brief history of the future is more like an anthropology book. The first 100 pages are all about the history of civilisation, from dinosaur times to present day. From that point on, it is much more broadly discussing things like how empires will fall, religion will fall etc and how we will become more like our online avatars etc. It's the more depressing one.

The book was written originally in 2006 and lots of the predictions have already happened.

Second Machine Age is much more specific about technology and work. It's a lot more hopeful.

They are vastly different books, so IMO doesn't matter the order. Second Machine Age is better if you are more concerned with the near future.

[neeko]

Question of the day

What major political issues do we have a wealth of information about their importance, but are still being completelty ignored and maybe even covered up by the government?

The myth of trickle down economics....

Did / does anyone actually believe this, right wing politicians say this but do any of them believe it?

[Woodsey]

Question of the day

What major political issues do we have a wealth of information about their importance, but are still being completelty ignored and maybe even covered up by the government?

The myth of trickle down economics....

Did / does anyone actually believe this, right wing politicians say this but do any of them believe it?

Left wingers don't for sure lol.....

[DMorgan]

Question of the day

What major political issues do we have a wealth of information about their importance, but are still being completelty ignored and maybe even covered up by the government?

The myth of trickle down economics....

Did / does anyone actually believe this, right wing politicians say this but do any of them believe it?

Quite a few people voted for it...

[Jon MW]

Two huge issues, neither of which is political as such, for me are antibiotics and the concept of AI and a "post-work" society.

Indeed.  We're going to die from routine operations in the future if antibiotics are over used.  Can anything be done to reverse this?

My fiancee is doing a biology degree and funnily enough they only recently looked at antibiotic resistance. The Guardian link sort of covers whether it can be reversed. If a pathogen becomes resistant to an antibiotic the antibiotic can't be made to work again - but the pathogen could either de-evolve so it would work again (unlikely), or could be made to become susceptible to the antibiotic again (something they covered in the Guardian article that some scientists are working on).

The other way of reversing the trend as a whole is that new antibiotics could be discovered/created - if this is done then if those new ones weren't over prescribed then a resistance to them would eventually form from a random mutation, but because the selection pressure to do so would be so much less, it would take a lot longer for that to happen. Some types of bacteria can also pass on antibiotic resistance to each other so a set of antibiotics which weren't overprescribed would have a mulitiplicative effect on how long it'd take for general resistance to occur.

They did mention that resistance is often passed between pathogens but they failed because they didn't call it bacteria sex (my fiancee mentioned a whole bunch of other biology words when she was describing it - but I pretty much just remember bacteria sex )

[DungBeetle]

The Lords blocks Osbourne's tax credits cuts.  Interesting from a democratic standpoint.

[DaveShoelace]

Question of the day

What major political issue have you recently changed your mind on? What prompted the change?

[AlunB]

Two huge issues, neither of which is political as such, for me are antibiotics and the concept of AI and a "post-work" society.

Indeed.  We're going to die from routine operations in the future if antibiotics are over used.  Can anything be done to reverse this?

My fiancee is doing a biology degree and funnily enough they only recently looked at antibiotic resistance. The Guardian link sort of covers whether it can be reversed. If a pathogen becomes resistant to an antibiotic the antibiotic can't be made to work again - but the pathogen could either de-evolve so it would work again (unlikely), or could be made to become susceptible to the antibiotic again (something they covered in the Guardian article that some scientists are working on).

The other way of reversing the trend as a whole is that new antibiotics could be discovered/created - if this is done then if those new ones weren't over prescribed then a resistance to them would eventually form from a random mutation, but because the selection pressure to do so would be so much less, it would take a lot longer for that to happen. Some types of bacteria can also pass on antibiotic resistance to each other so a set of antibiotics which weren't overprescribed would have a mulitiplicative effect on how long it'd take for general resistance to occur.

They did mention that resistance is often passed between pathogens but they failed because they didn't call it bacteria sex (my fiancee mentioned a whole bunch of other biology words when she was describing it - but I pretty much just remember bacteria sex )

Nice summary.

The key thing is for the wider population to rapidly wean themselves off antibiotics for relatively minor things. GPs are now told to not prescribe them for things like chest infections unless you've had it for three weeks (I think) or have other worrying symptoms. But most give in to angry patients shouting at them.

[DungBeetle]

Question of the day

What major political issue have you recently changed your mind on? What prompted the change?

The EU.  I have always been pro EU, but seeing them overrule the will of the electorate in Portugal has made me start to think about voting to leave.  They have no respect for democracy and for me that trumps economic benefits.

[DungBeetle]

Two huge issues, neither of which is political as such, for me are antibiotics and the concept of AI and a "post-work" society.

Indeed.  We're going to die from routine operations in the future if antibiotics are over used.  Can anything be done to reverse this?

My fiancee is doing a biology degree and funnily enough they only recently looked at antibiotic resistance. The Guardian link sort of covers whether it can be reversed. If a pathogen becomes resistant to an antibiotic the antibiotic can't be made to work again - but the pathogen could either de-evolve so it would work again (unlikely), or could be made to become susceptible to the antibiotic again (something they covered in the Guardian article that some scientists are working on).

The other way of reversing the trend as a whole is that new antibiotics could be discovered/created - if this is done then if those new ones weren't over prescribed then a resistance to them would eventually form from a random mutation, but because the selection pressure to do so would be so much less, it would take a lot longer for that to happen. Some types of bacteria can also pass on antibiotic resistance to each other so a set of antibiotics which weren't overprescribed would have a mulitiplicative effect on how long it'd take for general resistance to occur.

They did mention that resistance is often passed between pathogens but they failed because they didn't call it bacteria sex (my fiancee mentioned a whole bunch of other biology words when she was describing it - but I pretty much just remember bacteria sex )

Nice summary.

The key thing is for the wider population to rapidly wean themselves off antibiotics for relatively minor things. GPs are now told to not prescribe them for things like chest infections unless you've had it for three weeks (I think) or have other worrying symptoms. But most give in to angry patients shouting at them.

A couple of noddy questions.

If I take antibiotics to treat ear infections over a decade or so, how does that make antibiotics less effective against hospital infection post operations.

If I take antibiotics too often, is it only me who the antibiotics don't work on, or all patients.  If it's all patients, how does that work?

[AlunB]

Two huge issues, neither of which is political as such, for me are antibiotics and the concept of AI and a "post-work" society.

Indeed.  We're going to die from routine operations in the future if antibiotics are over used.  Can anything be done to reverse this?

My fiancee is doing a biology degree and funnily enough they only recently looked at antibiotic resistance. The Guardian link sort of covers whether it can be reversed. If a pathogen becomes resistant to an antibiotic the antibiotic can't be made to work again - but the pathogen could either de-evolve so it would work again (unlikely), or could be made to become susceptible to the antibiotic again (something they covered in the Guardian article that some scientists are working on).

The other way of reversing the trend as a whole is that new antibiotics could be discovered/created - if this is done then if those new ones weren't over prescribed then a resistance to them would eventually form from a random mutation, but because the selection pressure to do so would be so much less, it would take a lot longer for that to happen. Some types of bacteria can also pass on antibiotic resistance to each other so a set of antibiotics which weren't overprescribed would have a mulitiplicative effect on how long it'd take for general resistance to occur.

They did mention that resistance is often passed between pathogens but they failed because they didn't call it bacteria sex (my fiancee mentioned a whole bunch of other biology words when she was describing it - but I pretty much just remember bacteria sex )

Nice summary.

The key thing is for the wider population to rapidly wean themselves off antibiotics for relatively minor things. GPs are now told to not prescribe them for things like chest infections unless you've had it for three weeks (I think) or have other worrying symptoms. But most give in to angry patients shouting at them.

A couple of noddy questions.

If I take antibiotics to treat ear infections over a decade or so, how does that make antibiotics less effective against hospital infection post operations.

If I take antibiotics too often, is it only me who the antibiotics don't work on, or all patients.  If it's all patients, how does that work?

My science knowledge is chemistry and physics, so this is very much a layman's view. But as I understand it....

It's not you who becomes resistant it's the bacteria mutating and developing resistance to the antibiotics.

[doubleup]

The Lords blocks Osbourne's tax credits cuts.  Interesting from a democratic standpoint.

Only in the sense that anything the Upper House does isn't democratic.  Osborne could have avoided any "crisis" if he had put such major changes in the Finance Bill where they would have been properly debated and not a statutory instrument.

[DaveShoelace]

I find the House of Lords quite confusing, what is the protocol now for Osbourne trying to get the tax credit cuts through? Do they have final say?

Disagree with the concept of the House of Lords in general, but good on em for this.

[DungBeetle]

The Lords blocks Osbourne's tax credits cuts.  Interesting from a democratic standpoint.

Only in the sense that anything the Upper House does isn't democratic.  Osborne could have avoided any "crisis" if he had put such major changes in the Finance Bill where they would have been properly debated and not a statutory instrument.

Surely they have been "properly debated" though.  They've been passed by vote twice and they also debated Labour's motion to stop the changes?  Given this has happened, I have no idea why it wasn't part of the finance bill.  What extra level of debate is there on top of 2 votes and a motion to oppose?