Calm rules

At the eye of the storm there is calm.

A thinly attended House of Commons. Few diners in the members dining room tonight. Has parliament already died?  Probably, yes. There is no appetite for rushed legislation that may be amended by a new Government. For the only time in the parliamentary cycle, the opposition can determine legislation. 

Ministers sadly going about their duties in most cases for the last time. Many will lose their seats. More will be cast down by a change of Government. Some who have changed parties like Quentin Davies have no seats to lose. There were several 'last suppers' as MPs dined with friends that they will rarely see again.  Outside there is the excitement of an election and a new Government. 

Inside the  family of parliament is fading away.

Over-ordering

Tomorrow's Guardian has some good news of a sort. Their ace health editor Sarah Boseley reports that the Department of health has struck a deal with drug giant GlaxoSmithKline to cancel part of its massive order for swine flu vaccine, it emerged today

•     

The government ordered 90 million doses of swine flu vaccine - enough to vaccinate the entire population and more per head than any other country in Europe. With flu cases down to below 5,000 a week - as they have been for the last three months - it has become very clear that the UK has substantially more vaccine than it needs.

The agreement will save a third of the value of the contract the government entered into with GSK to buy its vaccine Pandemrix, the department of health said. But the NHS will still be left with many more doses than it needs - it will now pay for 38.4 million doses from GSK instead of 60 million (a further 30 million were ordered from Baxter Healthcare but the contract had a get-out clause and was terminated at the end of February). But less than 5 million people have been vaccinated in England.

GSK will not suffer from the cancellation - the deal involves a commitment by the department of health to buy some of its other products instead.

The department of health, which issued a joint statement with GSK, refused to reveal how much money the contract was worth or how much it will still have to pay - but the figures will be substantial. Last September, the government said that it would spend £155.4 million over four years on swine flu vaccine.

The government says the surplus vaccine will be kept as a stockpile in case a "third wave" of swine flu emerges. The 38.4 million doses include those already received by the NHS and those specifically manufactured and stockpiled by GSK for the UK, which, says the statement, could not reasonably be retracted.

As part of the deal, the NHS will also take some stocks of "bird flu" vaccine from GSK and supplies of Relenza, its inhaled antiviral drug, to replace those that have already been used.

"This deal means the UK will save approximately one third of the original value of the orders with GSK," said Health Secretary Andy Burnham. "I am pleased we have reached an agreement that is good value for the taxpayer and means that the department has retained a strategic stockpile to protect the UK population without incurring a cancellation fee. This both protects the public purse and ensures the UK remains at the forefront of pandemic preparedness worldwide.

"The probability of a 'bird flu' pandemic, which is likely to be more severe than swine flu, has not diminished. This agreement means we are ready if a 'bird flu' pandemic occurred, and allows us to maintain our status as one of the most prepared countries in the world."

Labour MP Paul Flynn, who is involved in an investigation by the Council of Europe into the flu pandemic and allegations of drug company influence on World Health Organisation and government policies, said he was glad a limit had been set on vaccine purchase but called for more transparency.

The UK bought "vastly more than any other country we know of", he said, but would not reveal the price it paid per dose. He pointed out that the Polish health minister told the Council of Europe's investigation last week that her country refused to buy any vaccine at all - and yet the outcome had been little different from that in the UK. The drug companies selling flu vaccines and medicines, he said, "have made millions and their profits have shot up".

Don't they know?
PRESS CONFERENCE AT PARLIAMENT
2pm Wednesday 7 April
Room C, 1 Parliament Street

GENERAL ELECTION - DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON?

In the run up to the election all the major parties are trying to ignore one of
the most burning questions for electors - why are British and other NATO troops
still fighting and dying in Afghanistan?

The Stop the War Coalition, the British Muslim Initiative and CND have called a
press conference on Wednesday 7 April to highlight the issue all the
politicians are trying to forget - the huge expenditure on unpopular wars.

The press conference will be attended by George Galloway MP and Jeremy Corbyn
MP, as well as leaders of the anti war movement. That includes me.

Comments

[HuwOS]

Translation was fine DG, but I listened to the MPs debating DEB yesterday and it would be lost on many of them.

[Tony]

I'd have to agree that the washup process shows contempt for parliament. If it is the end of free public wi-fi then thats a classic mistake - pandering to the needs of the few over the many..
And I was amazed listening to PMQ's today - BROWN is STILL saying we need to tax and spend to maintain services!
Excuse me? Last time I looked we had a stonking deficit and yet he still refuses to stop spending money he has not got ?
Would that the Labour party had the balls to get rid of him, because for all the policies you may have, Brown is a huge stumbling block to consider voting Labour. If that makes it personality politics then so be it ..

Or as Kinnock said 'All right ... well all right !!'

[DG]

Sorry Huw, I think my irony didn't translate very well - I'm completely in agreement with you on this one.

[HuwOS]

"I know some misguided idiots argued that the easy availability of video games was good for the industry; that young people with no money now would be willing to pay good money for them when they grew up and started earning" -DG

Many would object to that DG (although some studies suggest that there is at least an element of truth to it) but it should be noted that not everyone who "illegally downloads" particular games do not also buy the very same titles.
Sometimes the downloads even occur after the purchase as some gamers who often have a fairly large range of games, prefer to not be forced to have the DVD for the game in their computer when they want to play it.
This is one of the situations where, supposed copy protection and copyright enforcement is in fact forcing people to engage in apparently illegal activities and perhaps being technically in breach of copyright (albeit being in no way damaging to either the creators or the publishers of these games) so they can use their purchases in a way which is convenient to them.

[HuwOS]

My largest concerns DG are over the ability to block/takedown websites or pages on accusation or assertion.

But there is a very valid argument to take a very long hard look at what the purpose of copyright is, what its limits should be and how long it should last.
One MP yesterday did mention when the first copyright legislation was brought in it was done to protect authors from unscrupulous publishers.
It is interesting that it is now primarily publishers who are the ones seeking to not only raise levels of enforcement but also to extend it to incredibly intrusive levels.
Not only copyright but also patent law needs to be scrutinised in detail and amended as necessary as it is also being used in some ways that are contrary to the intended aims of patent.

[DG]

Remember in the mid-nineties, when piracy was set to destroy the video game industry? Nothing on this scale was done to protect it, and sure enough, the industry collapsed. If only we'd acted sooner, we might have been living through a golden age of gaming right now, with consoles in family living rooms all over the country, and exciting new innovations like motion sensors becoming commonplace. Alas, none of this has been possible, because all the profits lost to unscrupulous freeloaders meant that there was no money available to create new games, or research new technologies.

I know some misguided idiots argued that the easy availability of video games was good for the industry; that young people with no money now would be willing to pay good money for them when they grew up and started earning, and that new revenue streams from innovative platforms such as MMPORGs would emerge, but they were *totally* wrong.

And look what's happened to the film industry since the emergence of pirated videos and DVDs. Decimated. There's no way a film could make serious money these days, not even if it was full of semi-naked blue-skinned girls scrapping with marines in a forest.

[Kay Tie]

No, not shocking: exactly the contempt for Parliament and the people we've come to expect.

So that's it for free WiFi in public places then. Thanks Paul.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Huw. At least part of the problem is the looming terminal threat of the General Election - plus the vested interest in this complex bill. No legislation in the run up to an election?

[HuwOS]

Shocking debate on the Digital Economy Bill.
Hard to imagine a greater level of ignorance could be displayed anywhere.