General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some of them are.
Some of them are wetter than a weekend in Skegness.
What is indisputable is the current incarnation of the Conservative Party is not a welcoming place for the damp ones.

You really should have checked before referencing Thatcher and making grandiose claims- that is also indisputable.

Trump says the NHS is not on the table. Ditto, Johnson.

Discussing pharma-prices is entirely normal and reasonable between countries, moreso that document was a scope document from Mar. 2018, where it stated at least three times that the US appreciated the sensitivity of the issue and it only sought to establish greater "access to existing markets".

Now that Trump says that, the claim becomes he's lying.
If Trump said the NHS is on the table, Trump is suddenly an honest person.

You can't have it both ways - determining who is telling the truth simply because of your own political persuasion.

Furthermore, there is no political appetite in the UK for the NHS to be dismantled.

All else is conspiracy theories and unadulterated fear-mongering tactics.

These are the facts, however unpalatable.

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trump says the NHS is not on the table. Ditto, Johnson.

Discussing pharma-prices is entirely normal and reasonable between countries, moreso that document was a scope document from Mar. 2018, where it stated at least three times that the US appreciated the sensitivity of the issue and it only sought to establish greater "access to existing markets".

Now that Trump says that, the claim becomes he's lying.
If Trump said the NHS is on the table, Trump is suddenly an honest person.

You can't have it both ways - determining who is telling the truth simply because of your own political persuasion.

Furthermore, there is no political appetite in the UK for the NHS to be dismantled.

All else is conspiracy theories and unadulterated fear-mongering tactics.

These are the facts, however unpalatable.

So we can't have it both ways because of an imaginary scenario in your head?

Trump and Johnson and proven serial liars.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump says the NHS is not on the table. Ditto, Johnson.

The USA ambassador to the UK is also called Johnson. It is not a coincidence that he has an interest in healthcare and the NHS - he is a member of the family that owns Johnson & Johnson - a company that also has more than a passing interest in healthcare.

There is a huge lobby in the USA/Washington political circles to get their hands on the NHS. There is also a huge interest in getting the UK to lower standards in food hygiene and agriculture so the GMO cereals and hormone fed beef can be sold in the UK, not to mention chlorinated chicken.

Trade deals are not one way street agreements - or at least not for the weaker party.

[Edit: The USA Ambassador (Johnson) has previously said the NHS IS on the table.]

SaintLeibowitz

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

So we can't have it both ways because of an imaginary scenario in your head?

Trump and Johnson and proven serial liars.

Being a serial liar doesn't mean that everything said is a lie.

Here is Donald Trump talking about the NHS and how it's not up for discussion. Given Trump has a propensity to do what he says - economy, migration, China etc. - I think we should at least take Trump at his word until evidence contradicts this.

Moreover, it's not up to him or Johnson. The UK electorate will not accept it.

SaintLeibowitz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Being a serial liar doesn't mean that everything said is a lie.

Here is Donald Trump talking about the NHS and how it's not up for discussion. Given Trump has a propensity to do what he says - economy, migration, China etc. - I think we should at least take Trump at his word until evidence contradicts this.

Moreover, it's not up to him or Johnson. The UK electorate will not accept it.

Proven serial liars. You can take trumps word for it. Though I would say that makes you out to be gullible.

Furthermore, Prime Minister Johnson answered this question this morning on Nick Ferrari.

He re-affirmed the points I've made here, and "if any government were mad enough" to put the NHS up-for-sale, they would be wiped out at the next General Election.

It's painfully obvious that this issue is being inflated to the partisan point of incredulity. It's not a credible position.

The truly gullible person is the voter who believes the NHS will become Americanised within the next decade and they'll receive 20,000 pound bills for minor surgery. Nothing like this will happen - period.

Joe_ Public

Eskimo, i just reiterate Dan Hannans opinion on the nhs and us trade talks because i know you rate him highly as an intellectual thinker so would be inclined to take his thoughts seriously. "...swift, time-tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years."


Daniel Hannan - "As for other services areas, health services are an area where both sides would benefit from openness to foreign competition, although we recognize any changes to existing regulations will be extremely controversial. Perhaps, then, for other areas the initial focus should be on other fields such as education or legal services, where negotiators can test the waters and see what is possible. That said, we would envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years."

Strazdas

The key point about the US / NHS stuff is that it will define the UK's future for the next 25 years.

I was reading a good article this week saying that if the UK moves too closely into the US's orbit, it may well kill off any chance of a trade deal with the EU. But if it was to move to close alignment with the EU, this may well wreck any chance of a US trade deal.

They really are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and risk taking a big economic hit, no matter what they do.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Daniel Hannan - "As for other services areas, health services are an area where both sides would benefit from openness to foreign competition, although we recognize any changes to existing regulations will be extremely controversial. Perhaps, then, for other areas the initial focus should be on other fields such as education or legal services, where negotiators can test the waters and see what is possible. That said, we would envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years."

I'm in favour of NHS privatisation. I'm in favour of the concept of privatisation generally.

The only difference is that I simply do not believe the NHS will metamorphose into an American model in the next 5-10 years.

Leave Johnson out of it.

It wouldn't even happen if Hannan was Prime Minister.

Take Jacob Rees Mogg. He is against abortion, but if he were leader, claimed that he wouldn't impose his personal belief on the rest of society, and that there is no appetite for abortion to be illegalised. The same is true of the NHS. Anne Widdecombe is against equal marriage, yet claimed last week she would not wish to see the law changed because "there is no appetite for it". This is a standard Conservative position.

Many Conservatives may want some degree of privatisation, but it simply won't happen on the extraordinary scale proposed by Labour proponents.

It's so far from reality it beggars belief that it has gained traction among a vast swathe of the electorate.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

The key point about the US / NHS stuff is that it will define the UK's future for the next 25 years.

I was reading a good article this week saying that if the UK moves too closely into the US's orbit, it may well kill off any chance of a trade deal with the EU. But if it was to move to close alignment with the EU, this may well wreck any chance of a US trade deal.

They really are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and risk taking a big economic hit, no matter what they do.

Spot on. There is no economist in the world with a reasonable hold on their mental facilities, outside dreamy brexiter circles at least, who would see abandoning trade agreements with your closest neighbours to seek fortune much further afield as any way a rational thing. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

They really are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea and risk taking a big economic hit, no matter what they do.

They are leaving the Single Market into which they sell half their exports. The nature of the Single Market means that if you leave, you erect barriers to trade. So trade will drop compared to staying in. This is not a risk, it is a fact.

I do agree that moving out of the European orbit and into the American one would mean a correspondingly bigger hit.

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm in favour of NHS privatisation. I'm in favour of the concept of privatisation generally.

The only difference is that I simply do not believe the NHS will metamorphose into an American model in the next 5-10 years.

Leave Johnson out of it.

It wouldn't even happen if Hannan was Prime Minister.

Take Jacob Rees Mogg. He is against abortion, but if he were leader, claimed that he wouldn't impose his personal belief on the rest of society, and that there is no appetite for abortion to be illegalised. The same is true of the NHS.

Many Conservatives may want some degree of privatisation, but it simply won't happen on the extraordinary scale proposed by Labour proponents.

It's so far from reality it beggars belief that it has gained traction among a vast swathe of the electorate.

What exactly would you like to see privatized? I'm more curious than anything really. I'm pretty anti-privatization of public infrastructure and services.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm in favour of NHS privatisation. I'm in favour of the concept of privatisation generally.

The only difference is that I simply do not believe the NHS will metamorphose into an American model in the next 5-10 years.

Leave Johnson out of it.

It wouldn't even happen if Hannan was Prime Minister.

Take Jacob Rees Mogg. He is against abortion, but if he were leader, claimed that he wouldn't impose his personal belief on the rest of society, and that there is no appetite for abortion to be illegalised. The same is true of the NHS. Anne Widdecombe is against equal marriage, yet claimed last week she would not wish to see the law changed because "there is no appetite for it". This is a standard Conservative position.

Many Conservatives may want some degree of privatisation, but it simply won't happen on the extraordinary scale proposed by Labour proponents.

It's so far from reality it beggars belief that it has gained traction among a vast swathe of the electorate.

Nobodys saying they just go out and hand the whole thing over in one fell swoop and the nation erupts. Its like Hannan suggests, you plot it carefully and do it by stealth. Hell, we don't even have to imagine this. Its already happening.

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They are leaving the Single Market into which they sell half their exports. The nature of the Single Market means that if you leave, you erect barriers to trade. So trade will drop compared to staying in. This is not a risk, it is a fact.

I do agree that moving out of the European orbit and into the American one would mean a correspondingly bigger hit.

That article also said that if the EU get wind that the UK is talking to the US about moving a lot closer to their regulations and standards, this could well stop the talks for an EU trade deal and they will simply pull out of negotiations.

An Ciarraioch

Joe_ Public wrote: »

42% is what tories had in 2017 i think (or maybe 43), so they're not way ahead of where they were in terms of vote share. That much anticipated you gov poll suggested they'd struggle to get a majority with less than an 8 point lead. So dont really know why so many people are calling 50-60+ majorities so far out from polling day.

Indeed - most pollsters project a hung parliament if the gap is 4-6%, and given many, bar YouGov, already show single-digit leads, Labour would be on course to at least deprive Johnson of a majority.

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Indeed - most pollsters project a hung parliament if the gap is 4-6%, and given many, bar YouGov, already show single-digit leads, Labour would be on course to at least deprive Johnson of a majority.

Thankfully most polls show that Labour are heading for a catastrophic defeat in 2 weeks time.

Idle discussions of a potential Corbyn victory or depriving Johnson of a minority are not what the polls say.

You can wish it were not the case, but that's the case as it stands.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Indeed - most pollsters project a hung parliament if the gap is 4-6%, and given many, bar YouGov, already show single-digit leads, Labour would be on course to at least deprive Johnson of a majority.

Johnson not getting a majority would be a very positive result for labour, if not definitively a win. No question labour are behind but that poll result will, as several have pointed out, help them far more than the tories in terms of campaign strategy. All we are talking about is a swing of 2% and a hung parliament looks assured. Its still that finely poised.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Johnson not getting a majority would be a very positive result for labour, if not definitively a win. No question labour are behind but that poll result will, as several have pointed out, help them far more than the tories in terms of campaign strategy. All we are talking about is a swing of 2% and a hung parliament looks assured. Its still that finely poised.

And Conservatives could rise to 44-46%.

I like how you fix 42% as the limit for Conservatives, and then start talking about how Labour "may rise".

Conservatives may rise, too!

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And Conservatives could rise to 44-46%.

I like how you fix 42% as the limit for Conservatives, and then start talking about how Labour "may rise".

Conservatives may rise, too!

Yeah. Never said they couldnt. But i wasnt the one going on about catastrophic defeats and the election already decided. A lot to play for yet over next 2 weeks or so.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah. Never said they couldnt. But i wasnt the one going on about catastrophic defeats and the election already decided. A lot to play for yet over next 2 weeks or so.

You said that 2 weeks ago, too. :rolleyes:

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You said that 2 weeks ago, too. :rolleyes:

So what? As true now as it was then. I dont subscribe to these poll results as much as others, so I'm just as tentative about the yougov poll as i am about the fact that in most of the polls I've seen over the past week labours vote share has been going up ever so gradually each time. I'm pretty confident there isnt so much in it that lab cant claw the ground back. If they can convince northern labour waverers that brexit really isnt worth putting thousands of peoples lives at risk, then i think theyre in business. But I'm not saying thats an easy job either. Have their work cut out for them on that.

ArmaniJeanss

As a Labour-leaning person, it's disappointing that they have needed to move resources/activists to shore up 'the north' at this stage of the campaign.

Realistically after a decade in opposition their battleground should be those seats where the CON majority is less than 5K, not the other way around.

And it's worth remembering that whilst 325 seats is technically the 'hung parliament' that pollsters refer to, it's still a Conservative win. The SF situation means they still win with around 319 seats, arguably a few less even.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As a Labour-leaning person, it's disappointing that they have needed to move resources/activists to shore up 'the north' at this stage of the campaign.

Realistically after a decade in opposition their battleground should be those seats where the CON majority is less than 5K, not the other way around.

If anything, it shows the level of contempt that the Labour Party has for many northern Labour voters.

As soon as Corbyn looks to lose, it's only now that the've decided to care about these voters.

It's quite shameful.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As a Labour-leaning person, it's disappointing that they have needed to move resources/activists to shore up 'the north' at this stage of the campaign.

Realistically after a decade in opposition their battleground should be those seats where the CON majority is less than 5K, not the other way around.

And it's worth remembering that whilst 325 seats is technically the 'hung parliament' that pollsters refer to, it's still a Conservative win. The SF situation means they still win with around 319 seats, arguably a few less even.

But hardly all that surprising since the consensus was they were facing a big remain threat in London and the south which hasn't really materialised in the way they thought, as lib dems have stalled among other factors. So a realignment makes sense this stage of the campaign. A bit like the germans in ww2, they're being squeezed on two fronts and seems like the north is turning out to be their potential "russian front".

Letwin_Larry

i see footage has been uncovered showing Corbyn calling into question Israel's right to exist.
any wonder Jewish voters are not very supportive of him and his party.

sid waddell

I get the distinct feeling that had the Tory supporters on this thread been around during 1942-1944 their response to being told the Nazis were killing millions of Jews in extermination camps would have been to say "nonsense, where's the evidence?"

And no, I'm not accusing any Tories here of being Nazi sympathisers, although a prominent Tory, a very recent PM actually, did unveil a statue to one yesterday, of course.

sid waddell

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i see footage has been uncovered showing Corbyn calling into question Israel's right to exist.
any wonder Jewish voters are not very supportive of him and his party.

I favour a one state federal solution to the Israel/Palestine situation, along the lines of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Am I therefore an anti-Semite?

Letwin_Larry

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i see footage has been uncovered showing Corbyn calling into question Israel's right to exist.
any wonder Jewish voters are not very supportive of him and his party.

For anyone who hasn't yet seen it, here it is:

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1200353236198346757

bren2001

Deleted User wrote: »

For anyone who hasn't yet seen it, here it is:

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1200353236198346757

I don't see anything anti-semetic in that video. It's anti-Israel all right but not anti-Jew. Can you point to a line in that video where Corbyn says anything anti-Jew?

Yet again, your hypocrisy is evident. You make claims that the tree planting initiative from Labour is ludicrous based on zero objective fact. You share this with no objective statement from Corbyn that is anti-Jew.

I see sheep

In Tories racism towards minority news - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50585088