General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

In other words, nothing has changed.

That was already questioned before the release of the document.

We've learned nothing.

And accusations of privatisation are just and only that - nothing more than inflated speculation.

You also ducked my point about Tory privatisation.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

In other words, nothing has changed.

That was already questioned before the release of the document.

We've learned nothing.

And accusations of privatisation are just and only that - nothing more than inflated speculation.

You also ducked my point about Tory privatisation.

Have you read the docs. The clearly discuss drugs, etc.

I didn't duck anything. It has nothing to do with whether Johnson was lying about the trade talks. You simply don't want to dicsuss it, want to discuss pretty much anything else.

Johnson - NHS will no form any part of a trade deal
Corbyn - I have official documents that show a long term discussions which include NHS

Eskimo - Hey privatisation is grand but Labour lied 10 years ago so lets talk about that!!

Bannasidhe

Oh dear, dissent with the Tory ranks is growing.

https://twitter.com/BBCWorldatOne/status/1199689695246110720

Wonder if Johnson is continually going to be asked about the problems of Islamophobia in the CP... not holding my breathe waiting for that to happen...

bren2001

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.

The following has been privatized by the Tories this decade:
Royal Mail
Manchester Airport Group
CLH Pipeline system
Sections of the BBC
Food and Environmental Research Agency
East Coast Trains
Eurostar

They've privatized more than that this decade but that's a lot.

Previous Tory governments have privatised:
Water
London Bus
British Airways
Cable and wireless
All other bus companies (effectively)
National Rail
The national grid

So, the Tories have privatized national transport, mailm water, electricity, and telecommunications to name a few. Yet, you think it's unlikely they will seek to privatize health?

I'm basing my belief that the NHS is on the table based on previous conservative governments, the fact the Boris Johnson has been exposed to be a liar as has Trump. The Tory party have gutted UK infrastructure since WW2. Why would they stop?

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

I'm basing my belief that the NHS is on the table based on previous conservative governments, the fact the Boris Johnson has been exposed to be a liar as has Trump. The Tory party have gutted UK infrastructure since WW2. Why would they stop?

Complete red herring.

The question points to NHS privatisation; that's what's grabbing the headlines and debate in this General Election campaign. That's what Corbyn keeps banging on about.

I'm happy to discuss other privatisation efforts another time. I'm not into this whole whataboutery-style of political dialogue.

If the Tory's were pro-NHS privatisation, we would have seen evidence of that over the past decade of Tory governance.

The fact that there is no evidence of this points us in a very different direction.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Complete red herring.

The question points to NHS privatisation; that's what's grabbing the headlines and debate in this General Election campaign. That's what Corbyn keeps banging on about.

I'm happy to discuss other privatisation efforts another time. I'm not into this whole whataboutery-style of political dialogue.

If the Tory's were pro-NHS privatisation, we would have seen evidence of that over the past decade of Tory governance.

The fact that there is no evidence of this points us in a very different direction.

SNIP.

Look, I am no Corbynista, I am no Labour supporter, my previous posts on this forum will back that up, but not even the most myopic, blue-eyed, Brexit-loving, Boris-fellating, double-breasted tory boy can stand there with any credibility and suggest that this document does not suggest that the tories are talking to the yanks about areas that will directly affect the NHS, including, but not limited to, extensions of patents that will maintain higher prices for longer.

The level of spin and mental gymnastics required to spin this one is so great that such a feat is impossible without making oneself look like a total fool.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Complete red herring.

The question points to NHS privatisation; that's what's grabbing the headlines and debate in this General Election campaign. That's what Corbyn keeps banging on about.

I'm happy to discuss other privatisation efforts another time. I'm not into this whole whataboutery-style of political dialogue.

If the Tory's were pro-NHS privatisation, we would have seen evidence of that over the past decade of Tory governance.

The fact that there is no evidence of this points us in a very different direction.

There's a 400+ page document which puts the NHS on the table in a US trade talk. That's evidence. Is it a smoking gun? No. It's evidence.

Secondly, you asked where the mass privatisation this decade is. I named 7 areas that have been privatized. The mail was one. That was all in response to your post.

Finally, to completely dismiss previous Tory governments is ridiculous. There is a history of the party doing it. It's not a red herring. Privatization is a fundamental belief of being a right-wing (or right of centre) party. I don't listen to BJs words, I look at his actions. His actions show him holding meetings on US trade talks where he is willing to discuss exposing sections of the NHS to Big Pharma.

awec

awec wrote: »

Look, I am no Corbynista, I am no Labour supporter, my previous posts on this forum will back that up, but not even the most myopic, blue-eyed, Brexit-loving, Boris-fellating, double-breasted tory boy can stand there with any credibility and suggest that this document does not suggest that the tories are talking to the yanks about areas that will directly affect the NHS, including, but not limited to, extensions of patents that will maintain higher prices for longer.

The level of spin and mental gymnastics required to spin this one is so great that such a feat is impossible without making oneself look like a total fool.

There is simply no evidence that the NHS is "up for sale" by the UK Government.

Show me where in that document the UK Government is implicated with this conclusion?

sid waddell

John Major laid out exactly how "safe" the NHS is from the Tories on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday.

That's "Corbynite cultist" John Major, former Tory PM.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

There is simply no evidence that the NHS is "up for sale" by the UK Government.

Show me where in that document the UK Government is implicated with this conclusion?

You are trying to suggest that the document, all 451 pages of it, has absolutely no reference to anything to do with:

- Healthcare
- Medicine prices
- Medical patents?

Of course, if you are searching for the words "the NHS is for sale" in the document, you will be searching a while, but if this is the bar you are setting, you are daft.

The tories have said all along the NHS is safe. The tories are talking to the US about areas that concern health and the NHS. The tories lied. You're trying to argue that black is white. Do yourself, and us a favour please.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

There is simply no evidence that the NHS is "up for sale" by the UK Government.

Show me where in that document the UK Government is implicated with this conclusion?

I like how you have casually avoided the, "mass privatization" comment. I've outlined what has been privatized and yet you ignore it. This government has a history of privatizing core infrastructure. They privatized the mail (which is effectively a monopoly and hence, bonkers). Yet, when I call you out on the comment....silence.

The document outlines an agreement that the length of medical patents will be increased if Brexit happens. That means that generic drugs will not be made available in the NHS for a longer period of time. This significantly increases cost. It creates a monopoly on a drug which increases prices. That is, in effect, privatizing a section of the NHS.

That is the evidence. The fact your choose to not accept it as evidence is irrelevant. There is no smoking gun and that's all you will accept.

Why did Boris redact the meetings? Why did he hide them? There is no sensitive information in them.

bren2001

bren2001 wrote: »

I like how you have casually avoided the, "mass privatization" comment. I've outlined what has been privatized and yet you ignore it. This government has a history of privatizing core infrastructure. They privatized the mail (which is effectively a monopoly and hence, bonkers). Yet, when I call you out on the comment....silence.

The document outlines an agreement that the length of medical patents will be increased if Brexit happens. That means that generic drugs will not be made available in the NHS for a longer period of time. This significantly increases cost. It creates a monopoly on a drug which increases prices. That is, in effect, privatizing a section of the NHS.

That is the evidence. The fact your choose to not accept it as evidence is irrelevant. There is no smoking gun and that's all you will accept.

Why did Boris redact the meetings? Why did he hide them? There is no sensitive information in them.

I'm in favour of privatisation generally, but it's this specific claim about the NHS and Tory's that is simply, factually untrue.

Second, there is no "agreement" that the UK Government has signed up to that "privatizes the NHS". That is simply not true.

Third, Corbyn is claiming the following - that the report "proves the NHS is up for sale". Definitive proof is quite a strong conclusion to draw from the content of the document, which offers nothing more than mere speculation - no agreement, no concession from the UK Government. Will you at least admit that Corbyn is exaggerating his claim by stating its "proof that the NHS is up for sale".

There is no evidence of the NHS being privatised by the Tory's over the past decade - yet this line gets trotted out as if it's a self-evident tautology.

Well, I'm going to call it out for what it is - partisan nonsense.

LuckyLloyd

So Boris Johnson is ducking an interview with Andrew Neil, as I suspected he might. Obviously the efforts at more open campaigning than May aren’t going as well as hoped so retreat into safe choreographed appearances and hope to hold onto the lead is the plan from here.

Letwin_Larry

Deleted User wrote: »

There is simply no evidence that the NHS is "up for sale" by the UK Government.

Show me where in that document the UK Government is implicated with this conclusion?

this NHS up for sale is nonsense and is nothing more than a crude tactic employed by Lab to try and distract attention away from Corbyn.

A Dub in Glasgo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

this NHS up for sale is nonsense and is nothing more than a crude tactic employed by Lab to try and distract attention away from Corbyn.

'NHS up for sale' as a slogan is no different to 'Get Brexit done' or 'Take back control' as slogans. Either they are all bad, all good or all indifferent

sid waddell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So Boris Johnson is ducking an interview with Andrew Neil, as I suspected he might. Obviously the efforts at more open campaigning than May aren’t going as well as hoped so retreat into safe choreographed appearances and hope to hold onto the lead is the plan from here.

The Tories have come a long way since John Major used to get up on his soap box and actually talk to people.

Johnson hiding away, worse than May before him did, is a utterly pathetic look.

And he has everything to hide.

Mr.Nice Guy

Neil would tear Johnson to ribbons, particularly on his claims about the so-called sea border.

He's probably calculated that the damage he'd face from running from an interview is less than what he'd face if he actually went and did one. He might be right about that.

suicide_circus

i heard it was bad but i had no idea how much of a car crash it was until i watched. painful viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EySXP15S8k

Strazdas

suicide_circus wrote: »

i heard it was bad but i had no idea how much of a car crash it was until i watched. painful viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EySXP15S8k

Corbyn was poor and very defensive, but it should be noted Neil was aggressive and kept interrupting him every time he tried to respond.

A Dub in Glasgo

Another Tory candidate is pulled because of Islamaphobia but apparantly that is just noise according to the Tories as they accuse Labour of being against a religion

https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1199715129018990592

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn was poor and very defensive, but it should be noted Neil was aggressive and kept interrupting him every time he tried to respond.

This line is repeated ad nauseum all over social media.

Any objective analysis shows that Neil interrupted when Corbyn was not directly answering the question.

One example: "How would you pay for the 58 billion extra pledge?"

Four times Corbyn responded: "Let me tell you why we need to pay it"

Justifiably, and unlike other interviewers, Neil won't allow obfuscation to take hold and he was absolutely right to hold Corbyn to account in the way that he did.

It's funny, too. When Johnson was interrupted 45 times and Corbyn only 12 by Fiona Bruce during their BBC exchanges, Corbyn supporters said that "interruption was needed to pull Johnson up" as he "wasn't answering the questions or was being deceptive". Yet when the same applies to Corbyn vis-a-vis Neil, they argue that Neil "interrupted too much" to failed to let "Corbyn answer the question". It's really quite amazing how they have it both ways, having their cake and wanting to eat it. They can't even see their own inconsistency.

Corbyn then went on to embarrass himself by not knowing that a government bond is a form of debt. Neil rightly took him to task on that, too. There may be a lot of heat, but at least with Neil you come out with light at the end. That's why his interviews make the news, and other interviewers do not.

suicide_circus

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn was poor and very defensive, but it should be noted Neil was aggressive and kept interrupting him every time he tried to respond.

certainly but he should have been prepared for Neil's agro style

A Dub in Glasgo

suicide_circus wrote: »

i heard it was bad but i had no idea how much of a car crash it was until i watched. painful viewing.

Neil's style is hectoring, Corbyn should have went on the offensive against the likes of Neil. Let us see how Johnson fares or is that 'I am not available to take interviews' type of cowardice?

Freeman in the Scottish Indpendence referendum in 2014 showed how to do it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhDyN7PCKPo

Labour's Barry Gardiner on the Andrew Neil Show in 20 minutes.

It'll be interesting to see how he handles Neil after Barry's admonishment of the media earlier today, against the backdrop of the NHS story and the anti-Semitism scandal that brewed last night.

Barry can often be ill-tempered and that never comes across well. Similar to Corbyn in fact.

The inimitable Kate Andrews spells out -- in clear and robust language -- why there is no evidence of catalysed NHS privatisation and, instead, there is more evidence that the US has no clear interest in establishing any new market within the UK healthcare sector.

Rather than relying on Corbyn's misleading slogans, which do not quote the document, let's perhaps rely on the evidence and what the US has stated, rather than what we would like it to state.

https://twitter.com/KateAndrs/status/1199737465860476928

In the 451 page document. Here are some quotes (rather than people just stating their own "opinions").

Pg 42: US is focused on locking-in existing market access and does not expect new market access in a specific sector be an outcome of any FTA negotiation.

Pg 53: We do not currently believe the US has a major offensive interest in (health insurance) space.

Furthermore, it is obviously absurd to suggest that because the US starting position is for market access under a negative list approach, this somehow means the UK is somehow unable to state that the NHS should be exempted.

In addition, what Corbyn and Co. are relying on is discussions held in March 2018.

A period that has nothing to do with Boris Johnson.

The whole thing is a train-wreck of propaganda, in the hope the "masses" will fall for it - if you repeat a lie over and over etc.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn was poor and very defensive, but it should be noted Neil was aggressive and kept interrupting him every time he tried to respond.

I think corbyn should have given a bit of ground on antisemitism and hit back harder on brexit and the tax issues. I dont personally see a huge problem with his stance on brexit but he could explain it or justify it better while neil's haranguing about the scrapping of the marriage tax allowance should have been better handled. Overall just wasn't good but still, its just one interview, wouldnt get all that excited about it.

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

This line is repeated ad nauseum all over social media.

Any objective analysis shows that Neil interrupted when Corbyn was not directly answering the question.

One example: "How would you pay for the 58 billion extra pledge?"

Four times Corbyn responded: "Let me tell you why we need to pay it"

Justifiably, and unlike other interviewers, Neil won't allow obfuscation to take hold and he was absolutely right to hold Corbyn to account in the way that he did.

It's funny, too. When Johnson was interrupted 45 times and Corbyn only 12 by Fiona Bruce during their BBC exchanges, Corbyn supporters said that "interruption was needed to pull Johnson up" as he "wasn't answering the questions or was being deceptive". Yet when the same applies to Corbyn vis-a-vis Neil, they argue that Neil "interrupted too much" to failed to let "Corbyn answer the question". It's really quite amazing how they have it both ways, having their cake and wanting to eat it. They can't even see their own inconsistency.

Corbyn then went on to embarrass himself by not knowing that a government bond is a form of debt. Neil rightly took him to task on that, too. There may be a lot of heat, but at least with Neil you come out with light at the end. That's why his interviews make the news, and other interviewers do not.

Johnson hasn't answered a question in about 10 years

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

Johnson hasn't answered a question in about 10 years

And with respect, what has that sarcastic comment got to do with the post of mine you quoted?

LuckyLloyd

At least Corbyn had the belief in his policies and positions - AND the respect for the electorate - to submit to an interview with a notably tough inquisitor like Neil. Running scared from the interview is far far worse.