General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

liamtech

Aegir wrote: »

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

Il tackle this bit if i may

Labours policy as i understand it will

• Fund the creation of a National Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
• This by itself creates a new publicly owned asset, which will employ a great many people
• The manufacturer will produce medication for use by the NHS - in effect it will have one client - the NHS
• Medications on which patents have expired are there to be produced at no additional cost in terms of patent
• The Agency can also pay for access to patent restricted drugs (perhaps time limited access, certainly geographical limitation will be necessary to restrict these meds for use with the UK only) - which will be supplied to the NHS
• This will save the NHS in terms of the cost of importing or purchasing meds from privately owned firms - and allow the funds which are currently used for this purpose to be redirected elsewhere

In a nutshell - good for business - good for the NHS - Good for the public - and good for the government coffers

Leroy42

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?

You make it sound like governments never over pay.

At the end of the day, the government will want to value in the signing of a trade deal. We already saw that in terms of Dr Fox. The details are not important.

The US states that a deal deal is only going ahead on the basis of extending patents for example. Sure that will cost more money, but the prize of a trade deal is political gold.

And we know it is not scaremongering because it is exactly what they did with NI in terms of getting the WA. If they are prepared to shaft a part of the union (in terms of unionists POV) do you really think they care about a few £Bn. Which will be announced as extra funding to great fanfare, whilst of course it means nothing to the NHS in reality.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Il tackle this bit if i may

Labours policy as i understand it will

• Fund the creation of a National Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
• This by itself creates a new publicly owned asset, which will employ a great many people
• The manufacturer will produce medication for use by the NHS - in effect it will have one client - the NHS
• Medications on which patents have expired are there to be produced at no additional cost in terms of patent
• The Agency can also pay for access to patent restricted drugs (perhaps time limited access, certainly geographical limitation will be necessary to restrict these meds for use with the UK only) - which will be supplied to the NHS
• This will save the NHS in terms of the cost of importing or purchasing meds from privately owned firms - and allow the funds which are currently used for this purpose to be redirected elsewhere

In a nutshell - good for business - good for the NHS - Good for the public - and good for the government coffers

economies of scale would say that a company producing drugs for one client will never be able to produce them as cheaply as a company that produces them for a global market. The NHS is a huge market, but producing generic drugs is a huge and very competitive business.

Asking the drug companies to hand over patents, or the rights to produce drugs under licence is like asking Coke to hand over the recipe to their famous drink. It is either going to cost a fortune, or it isn't going to happen.

There is very little logic to this proposal.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

economies of scale would say that a company producing drugs for one client will never be able to produce them as cheaply as a company that produces them for a global market. The NHS is a huge market, but producing generic drugs is a huge and very competitive business.

Asking the drug companies to hand over patents, or the rights to produce drugs under licence is like asking Coke to hand over the recipe to their famous drink. It is either going to cost a fortune, or it isn't going to happen.

There is very little logic to this proposal.

...and that pretty much applies to the vast majority of Labour proposals in this election campaign.

On a side note, the Brexit Party have released their party election broadcast. Worth a watch; it's very well put together:

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really? Look at what happened to Network Rail.

you'll have to explain the relevance there.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

and I have explained why i think your speculation is unrealistic. We disagree.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

You make it sound like governments never over pay.

At the end of the day, the government will want to value in the signing of a trade deal. We already saw that in terms of Dr Fox. The details are not important.

The US states that a deal deal is only going ahead on the basis of extending patents for example. Sure that will cost more money, but the prize of a trade deal is political gold.

And we know it is not scaremongering because it is exactly what they did with NI in terms of getting the WA. If they are prepared to shaft a part of the union (in terms of unionists POV) do you really think they care about a few £Bn. Which will be announced as extra funding to great fanfare, whilst of course it means nothing to the NHS in reality.

as we are in total speculation mode, what would Labour give away to get a trade deal, or would they not bother?

liamtech

Aegir wrote: »

economies of scale would say that a company producing drugs for one client will never be able to produce them as cheaply as a company that produces them for a global market. The NHS is a huge market, but producing generic drugs is a huge and very competitive business.

Asking the drug companies to hand over patents, or the rights to produce drugs under licence is like asking Coke to hand over the recipe to their famous drink. It is either going to cost a fortune, or it isn't going to happen.

There is very little logic to this proposal.

• Large manufacturers who produce generics, do so for one reason. To sell for PROFIT - an NHS Pharma manufacturing company will produce them and charge enough to simply maintain itself and its staff - it will not be a profit based enterprise - it will provide a service to the UK population and its employees will get sensible salaries
• Given that it will be able to supply the drugs exclusively to the NHS (drugs manufactured in Britain, for the NHS) - they will be able to compete and win
• Buying ACCESS to a patent (time limited- and with locks on where these generic patented meds can be sold) makes sense to patent holders - it is a payment to simply access their formula - it is income - and such an offer will not be turned down
• Im delighted to see people use the word Logic in their posts - but if you do so please be LOGICAL in what you are actually advocating

prawnsambo

liamtech wrote: »

Il tackle this bit if i may

Labours policy as i understand it will

• Fund the creation of a National Pharmaceutical Manufacturer
• This by itself creates a new publicly owned asset, which will employ a great many people
• The manufacturer will produce medication for use by the NHS - in effect it will have one client - the NHS
• Medications on which patents have expired are there to be produced at no additional cost in terms of patent
• The Agency can also pay for access to patent restricted drugs (perhaps time limited access, certainly geographical limitation will be necessary to restrict these meds for use with the UK only) - which will be supplied to the NHS
• This will save the NHS in terms of the cost of importing or purchasing meds from privately owned firms - and allow the funds which are currently used for this purpose to be redirected elsewhere

In a nutshell - good for business - good for the NHS - Good for the public - and good for the government coffers

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is highly specialised. Most drugs are produced on multiple sites with each handling a different stage of production. Precursor chemicals, bulk pharma and then dosing and packaging. And each of those stages can be highly specialised in themselves, to the point that they can't produce other drugs without massive investment. Probably the easiest would be the packaging of multiple different pharmaceuticals, but there'd be huge danger of cross contamination.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

• Large manufacturers who produce generics, do so for one reason. To sell for PROFIT - an NHS Pharma manufacturing company will produce them and charge enough to simply maintain itself and its staff - it will not be a profit based enterprise - it will provide a service to the UK population and its employees will get sensible salaries
• Given that it will be able to supply the drugs exclusively to the NHS (drugs manufactured in Britain, for the NHS) - they will be able to compete and win
• Buying ACCESS to a patent (time limited- and with locks on where these generic patented meds can be sold) makes sense to patent holders - it is a payment to simply access their formula - it is income - and such an offer will not be turned down
• Im delighted to see people use the word Logic in their posts - but if you do so please be LOGICAL in what you are actually advocating

yes, large Pharma produce massive amounts of drugs for profits, they are good at it and have highly efficient supply chains and production facilities. there is no way one pharmaceutical company producing a huge range of drugs can compete. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never worked in either manufacturing or the pharma industry. It sounds good to those who see the word "PROFIT" as evil though.

why should the drug companies hand over their crown jewels to a state owned manufacturer? there is simply no logic in that, unless they are paid an absolute shed load of cash to do it.

In fact, there is no logic in this proposal at all.

zanador

Aegir wrote: »

why should the drug companies hand over their crown jewels to a state owned manufacturer? there is simply no logic in that, unless they are paid an absolute shed load of cash to do it.

In fact, there is no logic in this proposal at all.

The logic would be that people's health is more important than profit - it's logical to me, personally, although I understand some people see profit as the more important thing. My brother is diabetic and if he were in the states I'd imagine he may well not be able to afford insulin. I'd rather see him alive tbh.

zanador

zanador wrote: »

The logic would be that people's health is more important than profit - it's logical to me, personally, although I understand some people see profit as the more important thing. My brother is diabetic and if he were in the states I'd imagine he may well not be able to afford insulin. I'd rather see him alive tbh.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post though.

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

...and that pretty much applies to the vast majority of Labour proposals in this election campaign.

On a side note, the Brexit Party have released their party election broadcast. Worth a watch; it's very well put together:

Any unicorns in there?

Hard to take them seriously when their leader won't stand in election and conned thousands of people out of a deposit to run as a candidate

Professor Moriarty

beggars_bush wrote: »

Any unicorns in there?

Hard to take them seriously when their leader won't stand in election and conned thousands of people out of a deposit to run as a candidate

They're 3% in the polls. They're a nothingburger.

liamtech

Aegir wrote: »

yes, large Pharma produce massive amounts of drugs for profits, they are good at it and have highly efficient supply chains and production facilities. there is no way one pharmaceutical company producing a huge range of drugs can compete. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never worked in either manufacturing or the pharma industry. It sounds good to those who see the word "PROFIT" as evil though.

why should the drug companies hand over their crown jewels to a state owned manufacturer? there is simply no logic in that, unless they are paid an absolute shed load of cash to do it.

In fact, there is no logic in this proposal at all.

If we could travel in time back to 1945, to the election of that year; I would be arguing for the creation of the NHS. You would be arguing exactly as you are, against said creation- because to you it sounds ludicrous

Firstly do you understand that, a patent holder, can for a fee (which they can set) authorize a company or state entity to access their patented formula? They literally get to charge money for what is in effect, a scrap of paper with a formula and a process for the creation of said medication. OF COURSE they would be open to licensing a formula to an NHS Pharma company for manufacture, exclusively for the UK. Thats it, they receive a massive fee for licensing, and NHS Pharma produces the drug, and gives them the credit for its inception. And in your view this is not a logical thing for them to do? To receive money, and advertising, for prior work completed?

As for the manufacturing and facilities required - I do not claim an expertise on Pharma manufacturing- but yours, and others, arguments that it would cost too much.. Surely the initial expenditure can be considered an Investment, for the creation of an enterprise that will save the British tax payer, and the NHS, potentially BILLIONS over the course of its continued existence?

Finally - what exactly is it that YOU are proposing instead? You CLEARLY dont like when I, and others condemn Boris's planned hollowing out of the NHS with access for US BigPharma - you denounce this, you say it is untrue. And you too, denounce labours suggestion to follow up the creation of the National Health Service, with a National Pharma Manufacturing Service.

OK - what do you and your friends suggest. What is Boris Doing? What would YOU do to deal with the NHS and these issues?

zanador

Aegir wrote: »

That has absolutely nothing to do with my post though.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood.

BonnieSituation

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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

Ah right, so he was prompted for that lily-livered acknowledgement.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

If we could travel in time back to 1945, to the election of that year; I would be arguing for the creation of the NHS. You would be arguing exactly as you are, against said creation- because to you it sounds ludicrous

it isn't 1945 though, so that is irrelevant.

liamtech wrote: »

Firstly do you understand that, a patent holder, can for a fee (which they can set) authorize a company or state entity to access their patented formula? They literally get to charge money for what is in effect, a scrap of paper with a formula and a process for the creation of said medication. OF COURSE they would be open to licensing a formula to an NHS Pharma company for manufacture, exclusively for the UK. Thats it, they receive a massive fee for licensing, and NHS Pharma produces the drug, and gives them the credit for its inception. And in your view this is not a logical thing for them to do? To receive money, and advertising, for prior work completed?

OK, I will humour you. suppose mighty Pharma limited has spent ten years and tens of millions developing a new treatment for Leukemia. They price this as $5000 per shot and each patient will need three shots during their course of treatment. so that is $15,000 per patient and will be given to each of the 10,000 people in the UK diagnosed with Leukemia each year. So the NHS will be spending $150,000,000 per year on it. This drug has a patent of 20 years, so we are now at $3,000,000,000.

How much do you think Mighty Pharma Limited are going to sell the licence for that drug for?

liamtech wrote: »

As for the manufacturing and facilities required - I do not claim an expertise on Pharma manufacturing- but yours, and others, arguments that it would cost too much.. Surely the initial expenditure can be considered an Investment, for the creation of an enterprise that will save the British tax payer, and the NHS, potentially BILLIONS over the course of its continued existence?

to provide the range of drugs the NHS needs, you wold probably have to replicate all the pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Ireland, not for capacity, but for capability. You would also need to train thousands of people, again, not for capacity, but for capability. The cost to do this would be huge and there would be a massive amount of waste, as people and machines would be stood idle for days on end. There is no way a company in this situation would be able to get anywhere close to breaking even, let alone paying back the tens of billions in debts required to start it up.

but hey, maybe it could work. Maybe they shouldn't stop with drugs. The NHS is one of the worlds largest buyers of surgical gloves, maybe they should start making those as well. hey also need a lot of beds and sheets, I'm sure a few factories in Manchester could take care of that. Maybe a factory in Sunderland making floor cleaner and one in Skegness making saline bags

liamtech wrote: »

Finally - what exactly is it that YOU are proposing instead? You CLEARLY dont like when I, and others condemn Boris's planned hollowing out of the NHS with access for US BigPharma - you denounce this, you say it is untrue. And you too, denounce labours suggestion to follow up the creation of the National Health Service, with a National Pharma Manufacturing Service.

what planned hollowing out of the NHS? can you provide some evidence to support this claim?

liamtech wrote: »

OK - what do you and your friends suggest. What is Boris Doing? What would YOU do to deal with the NHS and these issues?

I think the NHS should concentrate on its core competencies, which is treating patients and leave manufacturing drugs to the experts.

sid waddell

Sad case that I am, I went through every seat over the last few days to try and come up with my own MRP poll.

I have the Tories on 359 (like YouGov).
Labour on 199
Lib Dem 22
SNP 45
Plaid Cymru 5
Green 1
Independent 1

In NI I have:
DUP 9
Sinn Fein 6
SDLP 2
UUP 1

An Ciarraioch

sid waddell wrote: »

Sad case that I am, I went through every seat over the last few days to try and come up with my own MRP poll.

I have the Tories on 359 (like YouGov).
Labour on 199
Lib Dem 22
SNP 45
Plaid Cymru 5
Green 1
Independent 1

In NI I have:
DUP 9
Sinn Fein 6
SDLP 2
UUP 1

Would think SF are relatively safe in FST, but not beyond bounds that the UUP could win.

sid waddell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Would think SF are relatively safe in FST, but not beyond bounds that the UUP could win.

My feeling is that there could be a slight downturn in enthusiasm for Sinn Fein across the board (with the possible exception of North Belfast) and that could cost Gildernew. She always needs every single vote to win that seat, never better proved than in 2010 when there were just four votes in it at the end.

hometruths

SNIP. Use the proper names of publications please.

Joe_ Public

Talking about tory complacency, i find this staggering. Tory candidate in Lewes who is under serious pressure from lib dems cant attend the hustings tonight and sends a surrogate at the last minute. In this clip the surrogate doesnt seem happy with the role she has been assigned.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1201888897866829825?s=20

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Talking about tory complacency, i find this staggering. Tory candidate in Lewes who is under serious pressure from lib dems cant attend the hustings tonight and sends a surrogate at the last minute. In this clip the surrogate doesnt seem happy with the role she has been assigned.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1201888897866829825?s=20

Born of Irish parents. ERG supporter. Strange bedfellows.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Born of Irish parents. ERG supporter. Strange bedfellows.

Maybe she has valid excuse about not being able to attend, but that just looks terrible for them. I only saw her speak twice in the chamber, once in support of johnson and the other against abortion in northern Ireland so a fair indication of where she's coming from.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Maybe she has valid excuse about not being able to attend, but that just looks terrible for them. I only saw her speak twice in the chamber, once in support of johnson and the other against abortion in northern Ireland so a fair indication of where she's coming from.

Yeah. She's a staunch Catholic.

sid waddell

Think these results will change from 2017 (expect the Tories and Labour to win back most seats of defecting members), eg. Tories will win South West Hertfordshire, Labour will win Birkenhead etc.

Tory gains from Labour:

Ashfield
Barrow and Furness
Bassetlaw
Battersea (split Lab/Lib Dem vote)
Bedford
Bishop Auckland
Blackpool South
Bolsover
Bolton North East
Bury North
Colne Valley
Crewe and Nantwich
Croydon Central
Dagenham and Rainham
Darlington
Derby North
Dewsbury
Don Valley
Dudley North
Gedling
Great Grimsby
Halifax
High Peak
Hyndburn
Ipswich
Keighley
Kensington (split Lab/Lib Dem vote)
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Lincoln
Newcastle Under Lyme
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Reading East
Rother Valley
Scunthorpe
Sedgefield
Stockton South
Stoke On Trent Central
Stoke On Trent North
Stroud
Wakefield
Walsall South
Warrington South
Warwick and Leamington
Weaver Vale
West Bromwich West
Wirral West
Wolverhampton North East
Wolverhampton South West
Workington
Bridgend
Cardiff North
Clywd South
Gower
Vale of Clwyd
Wrexham

Tory gains from Lib Dems:
North Norfolk
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Brecon and Radnorshire

Lib Dem gains from Tories:
Cheadle
Cheltenham
Eastleigh
Guildford
Hazel Grove
Lewes
North Devon
Richmond Park
Southport
St. Ives


Lib Dem gains from Labour
Cambridge
Leeds North West
Sheffield Hallam

Labour gains from Tories:
Chingford and Woodford Green (Iain Duncan-Smith out)
Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers out)


Independent gain from Tory:
East Devon (Claire Wright in)

SNP gains from Tories:
Aberdeen South
Angus
Stirling

SNP gains from Labour:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
East Lothian
Glasgow North East
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
Midlothian
Rutherglen and Hamilton West

SNP gain from Lib Dems:
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

Plaid Cymru gain from Labour:
Ynys Mon

Joe_ Public

Ashfield is a constituency I've been keeping an eye on. That tory candidate is toxic, resigned from labour 2 years ago over sexism allegations and has had more since joining the tories. Saying poor people should be living in tents in fields and other crazy stuff. Some voters might be attracted by that but the independent there is running strong campaign and might win it i think. Still a labour loss thoygh.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Talking about tory complacency, i find this staggering. Tory candidate in Lewes who is under serious pressure from lib dems cant attend the hustings tonight and sends a surrogate at the last minute. In this clip the surrogate doesnt seem happy with the role she has been assigned.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1201888897866829825?s=20

I assume it's the same one - can't think there'd be more than one such case, but with the Tories you can never be sure - but said surrogate apparently left (as she said) before the questions, but tried to exit another way to avoid going through the hall and was spotted 45 minutes later still trying to leave. Eventually climbed over a fence at the back.

hometruths

sid waddell wrote: »

Think these results will change from 2017 (expect the Tories and Labour to win back most seats of defecting members), eg. Tories will win South West Hertfordshire, Labour will win Birkenhead etc.

Tory gains from Labour:

Ashfield
Barrow and Furness
Bassetlaw
Battersea (split Lab/Lib Dem vote)
Bedford
Bishop Auckland
Blackpool South
Bolsover
Bolton North East
Bury North
Colne Valley
Crewe and Nantwich
Croydon Central
Dagenham and Rainham
Darlington
Derby North
Dewsbury
Don Valley
Dudley North
Gedling
Great Grimsby
Halifax
High Peak
Hyndburn
Ipswich
Keighley
Kensington (split Lab/Lib Dem vote)
Lancaster and Fleetwood
Lincoln
Newcastle Under Lyme
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Reading East
Rother Valley
Scunthorpe
Sedgefield
Stockton South
Stoke On Trent Central
Stoke On Trent North
Stroud
Wakefield
Walsall South
Warrington South
Warwick and Leamington
Weaver Vale
West Bromwich West
Wirral West
Wolverhampton North East
Wolverhampton South West
Workington
Bridgend
Cardiff North
Clywd South
Gower
Vale of Clwyd
Wrexham

Tory gains from Lib Dems:
North Norfolk
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Brecon and Radnorshire

Lib Dem gains from Tories:
Cheadle
Cheltenham
Eastleigh
Guildford
Hazel Grove
Lewes
North Devon
Richmond Park
Southport
St. Ives


Lib Dem gains from Labour
Cambridge
Leeds North West
Sheffield Hallam

Labour gains from Tories:
Chingford and Woodford Green (Iain Duncan-Smith out)
Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers out)


Independent gain from Tory:
East Devon (Claire Wright in)

SNP gains from Tories:
Aberdeen South
Angus
Stirling

SNP gains from Labour:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
East Lothian
Glasgow North East
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath
Midlothian
Rutherglen and Hamilton West

SNP gain from Lib Dems:
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

Plaid Cymru gain from Labour:
Ynys Mon

Fair play to you, started an attempt at a similiar analysis but gave up fairly sharpish, there is a good bit of work in that.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

I assume it's the same one - can't think there'd be more than one such case, but with the Tories you can never be sure - but said surrogate apparently left (as she said) before the questions, but tried to exit another way to avoid going through the hall and was spotted 45 minutes later still trying to leave. Eventually climbed over a fence at the back.

Sounds like the same one alright. I saw another video of a hustings with Raab in his constituency which involved quite a level of heated exchanges between the audience and raab himself. Whether all this anger is truly reflective of the campaigns is another matter of course, can only hope!