General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

suicide_circus

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

i dont think anyone will be swayed by it. positions are fairly entrenched by now

Bannasidhe

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

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

What I found particularly interesting about this is how the Scottish Conservatives are clearly defining themselves as Scottish and stating the Scottish Tories will not tolerate Islamophobia.

Meanwhile the English Tories....

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

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Rather than relying on Corbyn's misleading slogans, which do not quote the document, let's perhaps rely on the evidence and what the US has stated, rather than what we would like it to state.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

The opinion of someone associated with a mysteriously funded Tufton Street think tank is not evidence.

If you have evidence, by all means offer it but just outsourcing your argument to a video and labelling it as evidence does not make it so.

prawnsambo

And there's the nepotistic little circle that will ensure that Johnson is unlikely to face the music. Beeb still in discussion with his team to arrange a date. I suspect December 13th could be a runner.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

And there's the nepotistic little circle that will ensure that Johnson is unlikely to face the music. Beeb still in discussion with his team to arrange a date. I suspect December 13th could be a runner.

That's a swamp that needs draining.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The opinion of someone associated with a mysteriously funded Tufton Street think tank is not evidence.

If you have evidence, by all means offer it but just outsourcing your argument to a video and labelling it as evidence does not make it so.

I did, my post immediately after that identified quotes within the 451 page document.

What Kate Andrews did was vocalise the points I raised in that later post.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Belief in his policies?

Respect for the electorate?

What about...

• Respect for the Jewish component of that electorate?
• Respect for the electorate in knowing how to pay for the WISPA 58 billion spending pledge?
• Respect for intelligence by not knowing that a government bond is a debt?
• Respect for the electorate to offer leadership, stating what direction the country should take in a second referendum?
• Respect for his own positions i.e. Euroscepticism?
• Respect for the electorate to actually answer Andrew Neil's questions?
• Respect for the UK nation by stating that he would be glad to kill the next ISIS leader?
• Respect for the UK electorate by not siding with Putin when the latter was involved with killing citizens on UK soil?
• Respect for the electorate by sending misleading emails today stating that patients would receive cancer bills, would need to pay to give birth and other misleading statements based on a misleading scoping document on potential future trade negotiations?

There's not much respect left - is there?

prawnsambo

A few snippets from the documents:

P41/64 wrote:

The US also said that the current Administration may want a shift in some areas of policy here so they were unable to answer some of the questions we posed. It was nevertheless a very helpful exposition on the key areas we can expect the US to push in an FTA and for us to start to determine the areas where we may find ourselves in difficult territory. The impact of some patent issues raised on NHS access to generic drugs (i.e. cheaper drugs) will be a key consideration going forward.

P48/64 wrote:

7. The UK (Gregory) enquired about pricing. The UK said that the longer you protect, the longer higher prices are maintained and asked if there is a trade off? How does this work in the US?
8. The US (Peterson) stated that pricing plays out domestically. The US said there is a lot of conversation on drug prices and looking at what other countries pay and this is causing angst. There are worries that the US is not getting a good deal in pharmaceutical industries

P52/77 wrote:

USTR [US Trade]asked about the UK portfolio of SOEs [State Owned Entrprises] (understood that it was small) and if the UK had concerns about their “health insurance system”
DIT: Wouldn’t want to go down avenue of talking about specific entities but the UK has an advanced competition law regime and strong corporate governance rules, and we believe we are compliant with international best practice. Wouldn’t want to discuss particular health care entities at this time, you’ll be aware of certain statements saying we need to protect our needs; this would be something to discuss further down the line when we come to consider what entities would count as 'enterprises'

Some of the below may have been quoted by another poster, but here is the full context, which is interesting...

P53/77 wrote:

The query about 'health insurance' was likely a fishing expedition to check the tone of our response. We do not currently believe the US has a major offensive interest in this space – not through the SOE chapter at least. Our response dealt with this for now, but we will need to be able to go into more detail about the functioning of the NHS and our views on whether or not it is engaged in commercial activities, including through consultation with the Public Services team in TPD.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I did, my post immediately after that identified quotes within the 451 page document.

What Kate Andrews did was vocalise the points I raised in that later post.

And they're nonsense.

The whole point of trade deals is to enhance market access. The "We do not believe" comment is just nonsensical.

The leaked document does reiterate concern in the US over drug prices. One of the trade representatives is quoted as saying: "there is a lot of conversation on drug prices and looking at what other countries pay and this is causing angst"...

One of the main reasons for cheaper drug prices in the UK is the negotiating power of the NHS, as the near monopoly purchaser in the UK, whether the drugs are patented or generic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50572502

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And they're nonsense.

The whole point of trade deals is to enhance market access. The "We do not believe" comment is just nonsensical.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50572502

Trade deals involve more than the NHS itself.

Second, discussion of drug prices occurs in any trade deal. The US is the biggest pharmaceutical supplier, whereas the UK is also in the top 5. It's only normal to moot the possibility of discussing prices. That's what the document is: a scope of potential negotiations, not a negotiation itself. But that's not the same as "privatising the NHS". It's a very, very different thing.

The UK has an opt-out on specific aspects of the economy, as per what the US side has stated.

There's nothing nonsense about this. It's what the documents state.

Furthermore, they are from 2018 scope discussions - not from Boris Johnson's administration itself.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And they're nonsense.

The whole point of trade deals is to enhance market access. The "We do not believe" comment is just nonsensical.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50572502

And the discussion on patent lengths. Because extending patent duration means higher prices and no generics. And in case anyone is wondering about the FDA and how it manages patents and testing (or lack thereof) of new products, a look at John Oliver's segment on medical devices might open your eyes. It might also turn your stomach, because it's pretty horrifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tIdzNlExrw

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

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

You accused Corbyn of not answering Neil's questions

Johnson is never, NEVER held to account for not answering questions

Professor Moriarty

beggars_bush wrote: »

You accused Corbyn of not answering Neil's questions

Johnson is never, NEVER held to account for not answering questions

Very hard to ask someone a question if they won't turn up for an interview.

Leroy42

Massive ball drop by the BBC to not have Johnson locked into an interview. Corbyn was on yesterday so Johnson should be tonight or tomorrow at latest.

If Johnson doesn't turn up they should allow someone else to take his place, like Starmer or Umanna. Tories should not be allowed dictate the agenda.

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

You accused Corbyn of not answering Neil's questions

Johnson is never, NEVER held to account for not answering questions

I'm not sure I'm harvesting your point.

Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right?

boggerman1

Is Cummings gone from no.10?

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Massive ball drop by the BBC to not have Johnson locked into an interview. Corbyn was on yesterday so Johnson should be tonight or tomorrow at latest.

If Johnson doesn't turn up they should allow someone else to take his place, like Starmer or Umanna. Tories should not be allowed dictate the agenda.

Or just empty chair him and show clips of his various utterances that contradict himself on each subject. You could get hours of entertainment from that.

Not sure if its been posted yet but theres a YouGov poll due out at 10pm with a large data set (100k+). Its equivalent in 2017 predicted a hung parliament and was roundly sneered at...., well you know what happened then. So it will be interesting to see what it turns up.

Rjd2

boggerman1 wrote: »

Is Cummings gone from no.10?

Wasn't the chat he had to have an operation?

Don't think he has anything to do with the election so far. Its some Aussie dudes running the tory campaign.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure if its been posted yet but theres a YouGov poll due out at 10pm with a large data set (100k+). Its equivalent in 2017 predicted a hung parliament and was roundly sneered at...., well you know what happened then. So it will be interesting to see what it turns up.

It will be important and interesting but seems a little early this round,,,9 days before the election last time I think.

If we're honest, we should expect a shift of voters to Labour in the coming weeks - particularly from the Lib Dems.

Here though, what matters is that - despite all the negativity - Tories remain on 43%. I expect more Brexit Party voters to shift to the CP over the coming period too.

We can all quote the 2017 election, but I think pollsters have learned a lot since then and will not allow the same type of catastrophe to happen again.

The latest data from a YouGov poll for The Times and Sky News showed the Tories held their lead over Labour at 43%, up one point from YouGov’s previous poll published on Saturday, but Labour was up two points at 32%.

It was the third poll in a row to show the Conservatives’ lead over Labour narrowing, and was taken on Monday and Tuesday – November 25 and 26 – involving 1,678 people. The data showed the Lib Dems dropping three points down to 13% on YouGov’s previous poll, with the Brexit Party on 4% and the Greens on 2%.

Meanwhile a separate poll by Pro-Eu group Best for Britain of predicted seats has put the Conservatives on course to win 366 seats in the 12 December election.

The polling analysis was conducted by Focaldata and is based on a sample size of almost 40,000 British adults.

It is the first poll analysis to adjust for the impact of the Brexit Party not standing candidates in 317 Tory-held constituencies. The predicted Tory figure of 366 MPs is based on the Conservatives having received the support of roughly three-quarters of the Brexit Party’s vote share. In this scenario, Labour would win just 199 seats while the Lib Dems would also go backwards, finishing with 17 seats. Meanwhile, the SNP would win 44 seats, Plaid Cymru would win four and the Greens would win one.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Trade deals involve more than the NHS itself.

Second, discussion of drug prices occurs in any trade deal. The US is the biggest pharmaceutical supplier, whereas the UK is also in the top 5. It's only normal to moot the possibility of discussing prices. That's what the document is: a scope of potential negotiations, not a negotiation itself. But that's not the same as "privatising the NHS". It's a very, very different thing.

The UK has an opt-out on specific aspects of the economy, as per what the US side has stated.

There's nothing nonsense about this. It's what the documents state.

Furthermore, they are from 2018 scope discussions - not from Boris Johnson's administration itself.

The documents clearly show that the government were discussing areas that they insisted were not discussed, and would never be discussed. It's pretty straightforward, doesn't really require much comprehension to wrap your head around it. Like, you can be all for the privatisation of the NHS, but the tories have absolutely lied here and that is undeniable. The secretive nature of it all combined with their nonsense denials aren't going to ease people's distrust that they aren't a bunch of snakes looking to make a few quid for their rich backers.

You are either being deliberately obtuse or suffering from denial.

Your argument appears to be that because the document doesn't literally say "the NHS is for sale" that the NHS cannot possibly be for sale. This argument is really quite silly, akin to me demanding that you show me a document where Jeremy Corbyn says "I am an anti-semite" quite literally. The document passes the duck test.

P.S. the UK doesn't have "administrations". Nor do we call our politicians by their title over here, this bizarre american thing of using everyone's job as their title doesn't work here. "Prime Minister Johnson" just sounds daft.

LeinsterDub

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or just empty chair him and show clips of his various utterances that contradict himself on each subject. You could get hours of entertainment from that.

He refused to say sorry just last week for his racism, islamophobia and homophobia. They could just ask his empty chair if he is going to say sorry

Leroy42

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or just empty chair him and show clips of his various utterances that contradict himself on each subject. You could get hours of entertainment from that.

Yes, of course, that is another option. But simply having no plan at all is beyond ridiculous. Either it is a leaders question interviews or it isn't.

Can you imagine if instead if Neil they had put up someone like Owen Jones to lick Corbyns arse for an hour. The Tories would have been out in a shot claiming bias. Well allowing the Tories to basically set the date means they are in charge. SUre they will be some damage some him not doing it, but the calculation will be that based on the last time he was on and the disaster that was, that Johnson would be better off staying out. Then at least there won't be any clips to go viral of him possibly making a fool of himself.

Think of the press coverage today. It was dominated, at the start, by the Corbyn interview last night. All negative. Even when Labour threw a legimate grenade into the election in the form of the leak of trade talk papers, the first few questions were not about the NHS.

Johnson doesn't want to get the same treatment over his articles about muslims, or LGBTQ. Or maybe being asked about Accruri or Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Or how about the Russian report, or why no economic reports on his deal have been prepared and released. Or what he has done with regards to JRM over his Grenfell comments.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

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

:pac::pac:

Yea, the US definitely has no interest in getting it's hands on the NHS, and can definitely be trusted to behave with honest intentions.

Back in the real world...

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

He refused to say sorry just last week for his racism, islamophobia and homophobia. They could just ask his empty chair if he is going to say sorry

In keeping with tradition, they could interview a tub of lard.

Mr.Nice Guy

A lot of rumours ahead of the 10pm release of the Yougov poll:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/1199790355572498437

Not long to wait now. Excited to find out what it says.

Rjd2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

A lot of rumours ahead of the 10pm release of the Yougov poll:

https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood/status/1199790355572498437

Not long to wait now. Excited to find out what it says.

https://twitter.com/DrAlanWager/status/1199723865427120128

all on the back of that the betting move.

Tbf would not trust the betting markets,,got 2015 and 2017 election wrong and Brexit.

prawnsambo

boggerman1 wrote: »

Is Cummings gone from no.10?

Apparently he has.

Strazdas

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DrAlanWager/status/1199723865427120128

all on the back of that the betting move.

Tbf would not trust the betting markets,,got 2015 and 2017 election wrong and Brexit.

But a gain of 9 seats is virtually nothing? The Conservatives currently only have 298 seats

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

But a gain of 9 seats is virtually nothing? The Conservatives currently only have 298 seats

Is that a gain on last election or current standings?