General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Zubeneschamali

liamtech wrote: »

But there is a bias, not necessarily against Labour, but certainly against Corbyn

Of course they are anti-Labour as long as it is left wing. They pilloried Milliband remorselessly for eating a sandwich messily. They have been anti every vaguely left wing Labour leader since the dawn of time.

Only Blair managed to get some of them onside, and since he was a right of center warmonger, that is hardly surprising. The media are still hoping that the Blairites in the Parliamentary Party will get back control from the grassroots who back Corbyn.

Letwin_Larry

duckin 'n divin Corbyn has issued a half-hearted "apology" over the anti-semitism within the Lab party, on ITV's This Morning programme.
imo this watery response is too little, too late.

the damage has been done.

BonnieSituation

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

duckin 'n divin Corbyn has issued a half-hearted "apology" over the anti-semitism within the Lab party, on ITV's This Morning programme.
imo this watery response is too little, too late.

the damage has been done.

The Tories Islamophobia apologies are in the post I take it?

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

duckin 'n divin Corbyn has issued a half-hearted "apology" over the anti-semitism within the Lab party, on ITV's This Morning programme.
imo this watery response is too little, too late.

the damage has been done.

Yeah, corbyn should have saved himself the trouble and apologised a lot sooner (even though he has already apologised in the past before) instead of setting off that feeding frenzy among tv presenters as who could be the one to draw the golden words.

Meanwhile the fact that corbyn was the only leader, far as i know anyway, to have called the rabbi who was attacked and beaten the other day to offer sympathy and support went unreported in the msm, or i cant see anything about it anyway. That kind of story just isnt interesting for people.

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

duckin 'n divin Corbyn has issued a half-hearted "apology" over the anti-semitism within the Lab party, on ITV's This Morning programme.
imo this watery response is too little, too late.

the damage has been done.

So, in other words he apologised.

Something Johnson has consistently failed to do.

I await your evisceration of Johnson on the same basis.

liamtech

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course they are anti-Labour as long as it is left wing. They pilloried Milliband remorselessly for eating a sandwich messily. They have been anti every vaguely left wing Labour leader since the dawn of time.

Only Blair managed to get some of them onside, and since he was a right of center warmonger, that is hardly surprising. The media are still hoping that the Blairites in the Parliamentary Party will get back control from the grassroots who back Corbyn.

Well look i dont think you and I are that far apart in our views, i grew to hate Blair for being the Champagne Socialist warmonger that he was - but i would reject the idea that the Media is predominantly anti left or anti Labour. They attack Corbyn's Labour party atm. And yes they did attack Milliband i remember that, and thats a good point

But i think the degree to which the media attacks labour is due to the current leader - as opposed to a hatred of all thinks left wing.

The problem is many of the Blairites that you and i detest - warned against electing Corbyn as leader in 2015- saying in effect he was TOO RADICAL, and could render Labour Unelectable - and we ignored them i was in my element when Corbyn was elected leader

Their words may haunt us now

But Lampooning Milliband in 2015 - is a far cry from attack Corbyn as being Antisemitic - and with him ruling out the apology on Andrew Niel Last week - very damaging

Letwin_Larry

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The Tories Islamophobia apologies are in the post I take it?

those allegations do not seem to have done the same amount of damage as those against the Lab party, plus Boris was quick to come out and apologise, effectively ending the story.

in contrast, Corbyn by refusing to apologise has simply dragged out the whole debacle. even in the ITV interview it was like pulling teeth. it would have been so much better to have lanced the boil quickly imo.

polls are again showing a 12 point lead for the Tories.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

those allegations do not seem to have done the same amount of damage as those against the Lab party, plus Boris was quick to come out and apologise, effectively ending the story.

in contrast, Corbyn by refusing to apologise has simply dragged out the whole debacle. even in the ITV interview it was like pulling teeth. it would have been so much better to have lanced the boil quickly imo.

polls are again showing a 12 point lead for the Tories.

Didnt johnson say something along the lines of anyone found guilty of islamophobia would be out first bounce? Reality is about a trillion miles away.

BonnieSituation

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

those allegations do not seem to have done the same amount of damage as those against the Lab party, plus Boris was quick to come out and apologise, effectively ending the story.

in contrast, Corbyn by refusing to apologise has simply dragged out the whole debacle. even in the ITV interview it was like pulling teeth. it would have been so much better to have lanced the boil quickly imo.

polls are again showing a 12 point lead for the Tories.

Link to that apology from Boris?

Leroy42

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

those allegations do not seem to have done the same amount of damage as those against the Lab party, plus Boris was quick to come out and apologise, effectively ending the story.

in contrast, Corbyn by refusing to apologise has simply dragged out the whole debacle. even in the ITV interview it was like pulling teeth. it would have been so much better to have lanced the boil quickly imo.

polls are again showing a 12 point lead for the Tories.

Ah, so once it doesn't hurt the party then its fine?

Johnson has not only refused to apologise, he effectively blamed the victims by saying that no offence was meant and sure doesn't he write loads of things.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It buys them wholesale at a significant discount though and this is what US Pharma firms detest. It will still be free at the point of use but by being made to pay the US's bloated drug prices, there'll be a lot less to go around.

of course it does, the NHS is probably the biggest buyer of drugs and medicinal products in the world.

Yes, the Pharma companies hate it because it has incredible buying power, but they also love the fact that it spends literally billions a year with them. How does a UK/US trade change that?

Letwin_Larry

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Link to that apology from Boris?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/27/boris-johnson-says-sorry-for-hurt-caused-by-islamophobia-within-conservative-party

beggars_bush

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

Corbyn beginning to look sillier and flakier than usual.
He says he's gonna confront Donald tonight.
First he was offended by the lies that Trump wanted to get his hands on the NHS.
Now that that untruth has been quashed, he's offended because Trump doesn't want their NHS.

What untruth?

hotmail.com

New Yougov poll still puts Tories 9 points ahead of Labour.

Letwin_Larry

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, so once it doesn't hurt the party then its fine?

Johnson has not only refused to apologise, he effectively blamed the victims by saying that no offence was meant and sure doesn't he write loads of things.

you are incorrect. please see link.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/27/boris-johnson-says-sorry-for-hurt-caused-by-islamophobia-within-conservative-party

Leroy42

He didn't apologise for what he said, he apologised for in it the party.

The difference is that nobody is saying that Corbyn has directly anti-semitic, but that he has allowed it in the party and failed to deal with it.

Johnson directly wrote it himself, so he should apologise for himself.

Massive difference, as well you know.

Joe_ Public

Interesting piece re johnsons interview on marr on Sunday. That the bbc fielded a huge number of complaints about it is unsurprising, both in relation to interviewer and interviewee, but why did they feel the need to attach the following to the complaint form? I'm not alleging anything necessarily smelly just seems a bizarre thing to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2019/dec/03/chuntering-and-untruths-why-andrew-marrs-interview-with-boris-johnson-was-so-controversial

Edit: this is what was added to the form:

“Some viewers have complained Boris Johnson was interrupted too much and the interview was biased against him”.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

of course it does, the NHS is probably the biggest buyer of drugs and medicinal products in the world.

Yes, the Pharma companies hate it because it has incredible buying power, but they also love the fact that it spends literally billions a year with them. How does a UK/US trade change that?

It'll remove the NHS's ability to bargain the same was as the US government can't.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It'll remove the NHS's ability to bargain the same was as the US government can't.

how?

If the NHS needs to buy a drug under patent, it has no choice where it gets it from. If the patent has expired then there are usually plenty of options.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

how?

If the NHS needs to buy a drug under patent, it has no choice where it gets it from. If the patent has expired then there are usually plenty of options.

Lobbying from Pharmaceutical companies of course. It's part of the reason why the US has the most expensive healthcare on the planet.

Many drugs don't have generic equivalents so if that's the case then there' no choice.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Lobbying from Pharmaceutical companies of course. It's part of the reason why the US has the most expensive healthcare on the planet.

Many drugs don't have generic equivalents so if that's the case then there' no choice.

This is one of the first areas. Even when a generic is available, to allow the patent to run longer in the UK. Won't be noticed by anybody, but the price will go up.

Of course this isn't a given ,they are trade talks after all, but if the US come looking for something like this, what would the UK be willing to forego to avoid it?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is one of the first areas. Even when a generic is available, to allow the patent to run longer in the UK. Won't be noticed by anybody, but the price will go up.

Of course this isn't a given ,they are trade talks after all, but if the US come looking for something like this, what would the UK be willing to forego to avoid it?

The UK doesn't really have anything the US doesn't have except for the huge NHS so I don't see how it's anything other than inevitable.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Lobbying from Pharmaceutical companies of course. It's part of the reason why the US has the most expensive healthcare on the planet.

Many drugs don't have generic equivalents so if that's the case then there' no choice.

the US government doesn't buy Pharmaceuticals though, insurance companies and private individuals do. Purchasing power is very limited and this means high prices.

The big pharma companies are free to lobby the British government any time they like and i expect many do, although they seem to concentrate mainly on the EU

drugs that have a generic equivalent are the out of patent ones, which are significantly cheaper (by orders of magnitude) than the in patent ones. As you said, there are no alternatives to the in patent ones, so trade deal or no trade deal, the Pharma companies can charge what they like. What they do need to do though, is to demonstrate to the NHS that these drugs are worth paying the extra money for.

none of this will change with a trade deal.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

the US government doesn't buy Pharmaceuticals though, insurance companies and private individuals do. Purchasing power is very limited and this means high prices.

The big pharma companies are free to lobby the British government any time they like and i expect many do, although they seem to concentrate mainly on the EU

drugs that have a generic equivalent are the out of patent ones, which are significantly cheaper (by orders of magnitude) than the in patent ones. As you said, there are no alternatives to the in patent ones, so trade deal or no trade deal, the Pharma companies can charge what they like. What they do need to do though, is to demonstrate to the NHS that these drugs are worth paying the extra money for.

none of this will change with a trade deal.

The Medicare and Medicaid programs do and they're run by the US government.

The bolded part is exactly what the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is for and that'll be the first thing to go as part of a UK-US trade deal as US Phara firms will be pushing for maximum access.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is one of the first areas. Even when a generic is available, to allow the patent to run longer in the UK. Won't be noticed by anybody, but the price will go up.

Of course this isn't a given ,they are trade talks after all, but if the US come looking for something like this, what would the UK be willing to forego to avoid it?

why would the government agree to pay more for something? Why would the US government want the UK to pay more for something?

This is just scaremongering.

as an aside, how will Labour's plans to make their own drugs in any way help the NHS?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The bolded part is exactly what the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is for and that'll be the first thing to go as part of a UK-US trade deal as US Phara firms will be pushing for maximum access.

could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

why would the government agree to pay more for something? Why would the US government want the UK to pay more for something?

This is just scaremongering.

as an aside, how will Labour's plans to make their own drugs in any way help the NHS?

Oh, come on. You know this isn't the case. Pharma firms lobby the US government to the tune of dozens of millions of dollars per annum and they're doing that because they're getting a return on that investment.

The government has promised global free trade deals galore and it will be pressured to deliver this one above all others. I don't see too many people in the Tory party who would be too bothered by billions of pounds of taxpayer money going to private firms.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

could you provide some evidence to support this claim?

Can I prove that NICE will be abolished? No. I'm saying that it is my opinion that the party of bad economics and privatisation will be happy to jettison one more piece of the state for profit.

Can you prove that this is nothing more than scaremongering?

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can I prove that NICE will be abolished? No. I'm saying that it is my opinion that the party of bad economics and privatisation will be happy to jettison one more piece of the state for profit.

Can you prove that this is nothing more than scaremongering?

You’re claiming that the party of tight fiscal policy would abandon one of the main elements of NHS financial controls just so a few pharma companies can fleece the government of money?

Sounds a bit far fetched, don’t you think?

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

You’re claiming that the party of tight fiscal policy would abandon one of the main elements of NHS financial controls just so a few pharma companies can fleece the government of money?

Sounds a bit far fetched, don’t you think?

Really? Look at what happened to Network Rail.

I've admitted that I'm speculating and explained my rationale above. Feel free to prove me wrong.