General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Andrew Neil's interviews with Jo Swinson and Nigel Farage have been pencilled in.

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1199694584810475521

However, a date has yet to be fixed for Prime Minister Johnson:

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1199697628545650688

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

So, what is your belief, that large-scale privatisation will take place?

Willing to put a % on it?

90%?

75%

10%?

Do you seriously, seriously believe that in 5-years' time, the NHS will not be free at the point of delivery but will, instead, become something akin to the US model?

In 5 short years, really?

Where did I say anything about 5 years? Youve decided to put the arbitrary number of 5 years on it. If your referring to the election cycle again ill just say if its part of a trade deal things become far less cut and dry of simple rolling changes back if labour win an election.

Ive no idea whats planned and yes its unlikely it would take 5 years for such a drastic change to occur BUT neither you nor I know 100% what could end up in a trade deal between the US and UK.

Right now anything is possible and ive no clue what level it could be at so no im not willing to let you push me into nailing some number to a mast to try and bash me with it.

However you are also the one saying something is impossible prior to it happening with zero evidence except two proven liars to base that belief on, im simply saying im open to the possibility and theres now ample evidence that support that possibility,

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Ive no idea whats planned and yes its unlikely it would take 5 years for such a drastic change to occur BUT neither you nor I know 100% what could end up in a trade deal between the US and UK.

Right now anything is possible and ive no clue what level it could be at so no im not willing to let you push me into nailing some number to a mast to try and bash me with it.

"Anything is possible" suggests that it has the potential to have a positive outcome, as well as a negative outcome.

So whilst you focus on the worst possible outcome (which, statistically speaking, is one of the most unlikely outcomes), I'm taking a step back and suggesting that we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves with conclusions such as that, unless and until evidence suggests that that extreme outcome is not only likely, but actively taking place.

As yet, we have been presented with a document that says everything is on the table. That's all, nothing more than that.

So yes, it's important that we put these facts in perspective rather than opting to choose the most undesirable outcome that just happens - by coincidence, perhaps - to align with your political perspective.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

I'm opposed to the country of China, do you infer from that statement that i believe the country of china should not exist?

When someone says the are opposed to the State/Country of "insert country name" its quite well accepted they mean their actions or policies and not their literal existence, this is kind of unique when it comes to israel and shows the strange automatic reaction some people might have to automatically jump to the anti-semitic claims regarding anything to do with Israel when its nothing of the sort.

It's not at all complicated with the state of Israel. There are many organisations, states and governments who have stated an aim of the elimination/destruction of the state of Israel as an entity.

And people don't generally speak in the way you have about other countries like China etc. They just don't. They may say that they are opposed to the communist regime in China, Chinese trade policy, Chinese involvement in other nations etc. Apart from the obvious impossibility of destroying the state of China. Israel is a small country and very easily (relatively speaking) obliterated as an entity.

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not at all complicated with the state of Israel. There are many organisations, states and governments who have stated an aim of the elimination/destruction of the state of Israel as an entity.

And people don't generally speak in the way you have about other countries like China etc. They just don't. They may say that they are opposed to the communist regime in China, Chinese trade policy, Chinese involvement in other nations etc. Apart from the obvious impossibility of destroying the state of China. Israel is a small country and very easily (relatively speaking) obliterated as an entity.

This is completely off topic so not gonna reply with more than i disagree with pretty much all of your post and we will leave it at that

Rjd2

Tough to find any neutral take on this as so much of twitter is biased and echo chamber orientated, from what I can see this "bombshell" today is pretty much nothing.

This and the absurd story about 50k new nurses....both parties really have contempt for the general public and feel they are very easy to manipulate what a dreadful timeline indeed.

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1199679475476238337

https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1199679475476238337

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

"Anything is possible" suggests that it has the potential to have a positive outcome, as well as a negative outcome.

So whilst you focus on the worst possible outcome (which, statistically speaking, is one of the most unlikely outcomes), I'm taking a step back and suggesting that we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves with conclusions such as that, unless and until evidence suggests that that extreme outcome is not only likely, but actively taking place.

LOL you cannot say statistically speaking NHS privatisation is unlikely to happen as its the worst possible scenario when there are very many people who also believe its one of the best possible scenarios.

Deleted User wrote: »

As yet, we have been presented with a document that says everything is on the table. That's all, nothing more than that.

After being told by boris and the tories multiple times that the NHS is not on the table, we find out that it along with everything else is and always has been on the table, so now the possibility is definitely more likely.

Deleted User wrote: »

So yes, it's important that we put these facts in perspective rather than opting to choose the most undesirable outcome that just happens - by coincidence, perhaps - to align with your political perspective.

And yet your choosing to ignore new facts that directly conflict with what we have been told again by boris and the tories perhaps because it aligns with your own political perspective.....

Even Barry Gardiner concedes that there is no evidence in the documents that the UK Government is willing to, or has, given ground on the NHS.

The documents are blown out of all proportion. A total dead weight.

https://twitter.com/paulpalmeruk/status/1199658797469519872

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is that:

• Ed Miliband didn't have a dubious history of flirting with extreme anti-Semites.
• Ed Miliband didn't have an anti-Semitism crisis within the party.

Jeremy Corbyn does not have an anti-Semitism crisis, he is perceived to have one by the mainstream press because of a concerted, years long smear campaign against him.

Interestingly, one of the main narratives about the supposed anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour party surrounds Luciana Berger.

Three men were rightly jailed for sending death threats to her.

These men were all active fascists.

These death threats took place before 2015.

This is never mentioned.

Yet somehow, through deliberate blurring by the media and those out to get Corbyn, the narrative took hold that these death threats were from Labour members after Corbyn became leader. They were not.

As regards Ed Miliband,in October 2013 the Daily Mail published a scurrilous hit piece on him through the vilification of his father Ralph Miliband.

There were unmistakeable anti-Semitic undertones to the piece. It was titled "The Man Who Hated Britain" and used the classic anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as communists to vilify him, and by extension his son.

Yet there was very little said about it in the mainstream press.

One of the few people to go on record and condemn the piece was Jeremy Corbyn.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

This is completely off topic so not gonna reply with more than i disagree with pretty much all of your post and we will leave it at that

That's a pretty intellectually disingenuous way of walking away from a discussion. You engaged with my post that was a reply to somebody else's and then decide that it's off topic.

BonnieSituation

And of course BJ brings everyting back to Labour:

Journalist in Cornwall wrote:

Q: You say the Labour allegations about the NHS and a UK-US trade deal are nonsense. So why was the NHS being discussed at all?

BORIS JOHNSON wrote:

it is nonsense to say the NHS would be part of a trade deal. Labour is trying to distract attention from the problems with its Brexit policy.
Labour is showing a vacuum of leadership on antisemitism and on Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/27/general-election-leaders-try-to-steer-campaign-away-from-race-and-faith-live

sid waddell

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL you cannot say statistically speaking NHS privatisation is unlikely to happen as its the worst possible scenario when there are very many people who also believe its one of the best possible scenarios.



After being told by boris and the tories multiple times that the NHS is not on the table, we find out that it along with everything else is and always has been on the table, so now the possibility is definitely more likely.



And yet your choosing to ignore new facts that directly conflict with what we have been told again by boris and the tories perhaps because it aligns with your own political perspective.....

Anybody who believes lies about "protecting" the NHS from the same people who told us before the Brexit referendum that Britain's place in the single market and customs union were not under threat should Brexit happen, is an idiot.

These people are inveterate and utterly shameless liars. The same amount of credence should be put in any public comment from Boris Johnson or any other Tory mouthpiece as in any public comment from Donald Trump or any of his mouthpieces , ie. none. They would sell their grannies to make a quick buck.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And of course BJ brings everyting back to Labour:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/27/general-election-leaders-try-to-steer-campaign-away-from-race-and-faith-live

I defy you to produce one sentence within the 451 pages of text where the UK Government has conceded that the NHS is "up for sale" and that arrangements have/are being made to facilitate that sale.

Until you provide that evidence, we can dismiss the conclusion that the "NHS is up for sale" and instead, as Prime Minister Johnson has already said, conclude that the document is being misrepresented and weaponised in order to distract from the multi-car crash interview and anti-Semitism scandal from last night.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

I defy you to produce one sentence within the 451 pages of text where the UK Government has conceded that the NHS is "up for sale" and that arrangements have/are being made to facilitate that sale.

Until you provide that evidence, we can dismiss the conclusion that the "NHS is up for sale" and instead, as Prime Minister Johnson has already said, conclude that the document is being misrepresented and weaponised in order to distract from the multi-car crash interview and anti-Semitism scandal from last night.

Here we go.

Read what I wrote.

Johnson is asked about something. Johnson responds with something about Labour.

Jesus.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Here we go.

Read what I wrote.

Johnson is asked about something. Johnson responds with something about Labour.

Jesus.

Johnson answered honestly - and his explanation is far more credible than what Jeremy Corbyn has concluded from the 451 pages of text.

That challenge above is not just open to you, but to the thread at large.

I await that sentence.

Until then, the conclusion that the UK Government has the "NHS up for sale" should be dismissed by all.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Johnson answered honestly - and his explanation is far more credible than what Jeremy Corbyn has concluded from the 451 pages of text.

That challenge above is not just open to you, but to the thread at large.

I await that sentence.

Until then, the conclusion that the UK Government has the "NHS up for sale" should be dismissed by all.

Define "up for sale". It's an incredibly broad term that can be interpreted many ways. I've a feeling, regardless what anyone posts, you'll argue that it's not "up for sale".

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

Define "up for sale". It's an incredibly broad term that can be interpreted many ways. I've a feeling, regardless what anyone posts, you'll argue that it's not "up for sale".

Let's widen the definition of what "NHS up for sale" means. Inclusivity is a good thing.

Can anyone provide evidence within the 451 pages that the UK Government has conceded that the "NHS is up for sale", and that agreements have already been made that meet this definition, or a related definition that means privatisation has been agreed in the document.

I can't be more generous than that, acceding to your demands.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's widen the definition of what "NHS up for sale" means. Inclusivity is a good thing.

Can anyone provide evidence within the 451 pages that the UK Government has conceded that the "NHS is up for sale", and that agreements have already been made that meet this definition, or a related definition that means privatisation has been agreed in the document.

I can't be more generous than that, acceding to your demands.

It's clearly not in the document. The NHS will not be privatised in the short-term but elements of it can be. Up for sale in the context which Labour are saying is referring to sections of it being controlled by Big Pharma in America and thus, increasing the price of drugs etc.

You know this but I believe are intentionally being difficult.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

It's clearly not in the document. The NHS will not be privatised in the short-term but elements of it can be. Up for sale in the context which Labour are saying is referring to sections of it being controlled by Big Pharma in America and thus, increasing the price of drugs etc.

You know this but I believe are intentionally being difficult.

That is a clear admission that the UK Government has not agreed to put the "NHS up for sale", yet this is the message that Labour is peddling. A clear and present misrepresentation; a gross act of political calumny.

There is a widening chasm of difference between what could happen and what is happening.

The moon could crash into Earth tonight. Anything could happen.

Labour have intentionally misrepresented the document as if the UK Government has already ceded ground on the "NHS for sale" question, when, as you agree, this is not the case.

For this reason, we can agree that Labour have performed this stunt to distract from the fallout of yesterday's interview with Andrew Neil.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a clear admission that the UK Government has not agreed to put the "NHS up for sale", yet this is the message that Labour is peddling. A clear and present misrepresentation; a gross act of political calumny.

There is a widening chasm of difference between what could happen and what is happening.

So you've agreed it could happen.

And we all know that when Tories deny something is going to happen, it generally happens.

Thanks for that.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a clear admission that the UK Government has not agreed to put the "NHS up for sale", yet this is the message that Labour is peddling. A clear and present misrepresentation; a gross act of political calumny.

There is a widening chasm of difference between what could happen and what is happening.

The moon could crash into Earth tonight. Anything could happen.

Labour have intentionally misrepresented the document as if the UK Government has already ceded ground on the "NHS for sale" question, when, as you agree, this is not the case.

For this reason, we can agree that Labour have performed this stunt to distract from the fallout of yesterday's interview with Andrew Neil.

I don't think its a misrepresentation of what's in the document. It's a perfectly valid interpretation of what's in there. Just because "up for sale" doesn't conform to your strict definition of it doesn't mean it's wrong.

The probability of the NHS being sold off, increases under a Tory government, that's the take home message. It moves from being improbable to probable.

It's Labours job to present this to the electorate. Are they making a bigger deal of it because of last night? Probably. That's how you win elections. The Tories do the same thing, that's politics. Is it wrong? or irresponsible? Not in the slightest, it warrants some serious discussion.

The electorate should know clearly what the USA trade deal will entail for the NHS.

Prime Minister Johnson responding to the NHS document / Corbyn claims.

Many here will recoil in horror when I say this, so refrain from picking up a drink, but I tend to believe Johnson's words on the matter.

President Trump also stated, only 2 weeks ago, that he has no ambition to devour the NHS and somehow morph it into the PHS, the Privatised Health Service.

Leroy42

There is far more in that Doc dump than just the NHS. The US are all in favour of No Deal, they want the UK to move away from EU argi regulations. That is just for starters.

Whilst of course 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' the previous 3 years, even the last 100 days, have shown that Johnson and the Tories are willing to concede on pretty much every point on the basis they get to declare that a 'deal was done'. And of course, just like with the WA, they will pull every trick to avoid HoC review.

Eskimo, you keep being shown clear examples of the y path that Brexit is going yet you continue to hold onto the idea that 'well anything could happen and it could all work out'. Whilst that is possible, all prior evidence points to it being very unlikely.

Remember, this all started on the premise with the NHS wasn't even part of discussions, but now that has been shown to be a complete lie, the goalposts have moved to such things like 'some privatisation is good', its not whole sale sale off without the next 5 years, and sure if they do sure the Labour government after them can simple fix them.

I'll remind you that Johnson was totally against the 'divorce' settlement, but now has signed up to it.
He was totally against treating NI differently (No PM could ever agree to this) and yet he has not only agreed it, he has created it so it is more permanent than ever.

At what point can you start to see what is happening in front of your eyes?

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

The probability of the NHS being sold off, increases under a Tory government, that's the take home message. It moves from being improbable to probable.

It's Labours job to present this to the electorate. Are they making a bigger deal of it because of last night? Probably. That's how you win elections. The Tories do the same thing, that's politics. Is it wrong? or irresponsible? Not in the slightest, it warrants some serious discussion.

The electorate should know clearly what the USA trade deal will entail for the NHS.

It was Labour who privatised much of the NHS.

This claim that the NHS is privatised under the Tory's, where is the evidence of mass privatisation of the NHS over the past decade? They had every chance then - something Corbyn and his predecessors claimed would happen - yet it hasn't happened.

It's just made up. Entirely fictitious.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Prime Minister Johnson responding to the NHS document / Corbyn claims.

Many here will recoil in horror when I say this, so refrain from picking up a drink, but I tend to believe Johnson's words on the matter.

Why, he has consistently lied about it the whole way through. The NHS was not even supposed to be on the table, yet we now know for certain that it was, and still is.

Corbyn claims are backup up by the documents, you only have Johnsons words. Let him show the documents where he writes to Trump stating that under no circumstances will they discuss drug prices, privitastion and the rest.

You are really trying to equate actual documentary evidence with a person words. Even under normal rules that would be a stretch, but we know Johnson lies all the time.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Prime Minister Johnson responding to the NHS document / Corbyn claims.

Many here will recoil in horror when I say this, so refrain from picking up a drink, but I tend to believe Johnson's words on the matter.

President Trump also stated, only 2 weeks ago, that he has no ambition to devour the NHS and somehow morph it into the PHS, the Privatised Health Service.

Both men have serious form for being deceitful. Frankly, it sounds like you're going with the narrative you prefer instead of one based on logic. Your call of course but it seems highly unlikely that the US would accept the NHS not being on the table for trade negotiations.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

It was Labour who privatised much of the NHS.

This claim that the NHS is privatised under the Tory's, where is the evidence of mass privatisation of the NHS over the past decade? They had every chance then - something Corbyn and his predecessors claimed would happen - yet it hasn't happened.

It's just made up. Entirely fictitious.

And the Tories have been in government for the previous 9 years so if they wished they could have reversed much of that. How much did they do?

And now we have discussions about using parts of the NHS as bargaining chips in a future trade deal.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1199692252261572619

the 7 people doing the BBC debate on Friday. Lib Dems supporters might be peeved its Swinson not Chuka or Layla Moran.

I know little about the tory bloke so wont comment, but Labour.....that should be Keir Starmer doing that. The most formidable politician they have but they send Rebecca Long Bailey.

Doubt Nigel is happy to be excluded either.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

And the Tories have been in government for the previous 9 years so if they wished they could have reversed much of that. How much did they do?

And now we have discussions about using parts of the NHS as bargaining chips in a future trade deal.

That's not the claim.

We're repeatedly told that Tory's are more likely to privatise the NHS.

The question can't be re-phrased as: why didn't the Tory's reverse what Labour privatised?

If privatisation is far more likely under the Tory's, why haven't we seen mass privatisation over the past decade?

On the document, there is no sentence - as others have already admitted - that states the UK Government has agreed to place the NHS "up for sale" and has agreed to mass privatisation.

None, not a single word.

It's Labour who you can't trust with the truth.

Leroy42

Its your claim. The question now is whether the NHS will form part of any trade deal. Johnson has repeatedly stated that it won't be, yet here we are with proof that it was being discussed.

The previous Labour government have not been in power for nine years, new leader, new front bench. So it seems odd that you are going to hold them to something that happened years ago but are willing to give Johnson a pass for what is happening now on the basis that maybe he won't. If nothing else can be said of Corbyn, then I think most people can agree that he will not be leading a charge for privatisation.