General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Rjd2

What is the best site for keeping on top of all the various constituencies regarding polls etc?

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

No it was announced at their party conference on 15th September. Prior to that their position was a second referendum.

Well have a read of this from last March: https://www.libdemvoice.org/revokearticle50-is-now-lib-dem-policy-60302.html

hotmail.com

It's interesting that the change of the revoke policy is hardly getting any attention online, at least so far anyway. It just shows how irrelevant the Lib Dems have become in this election.

prawnsambo

Rjd2 wrote: »

What is the best site for keeping on top of all the various constituencies regarding polls etc?

Britain Elects, Twitter @BritainElects is a good resource for polls. They tweet every poll that's published.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

It's interesting that the change of the revoke policy is hardly getting any attention online, at least so far anyway. It just shows how irrelevant the Lib Dems have become in this election.

They're only relevant from a tactical voting pov. There are a few constituencies where they are realistically the only choice to put pressure on the Tories. Can't see them going into government again, considering the bloody nose they got the last time. At best on a C&S basis and likely (despite what they say) with Labour and the SNP.

Joe_ Public

If the lib dems policy position was revoke all the time, why the big palaver about supposedly introducing it at their September conference? Just all seemed a bit confusing to me and not sure all the party were ever fully behind it.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If the lib dems policy position was revoke all the time, why the big palaver about supposedly introducing it at their September conference? Just all seemed a bit confusing to me and not sure all the party were ever fully behind it.

Don't know how you could have missed the B****cks to Brexit stuff at the Europeans. But to answer your question, I would imagine that that's because it was introduced between conferences and hence the big deal at this one.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

Don't know how you could have missed the B****cks to Brexit stuff at the Europeans. But to answer your question, I would imagine that that's because it was introduced between conferences and hence the big deal at this one.

Ok thats fair enough. Seems a bit confusing to me. Layla Moran seemed to be of impression second referendum was always "plan a" and as an actual lib dem mp, I'm inclined to attach some weight to what she says here. Maybe she missed those t-shirts too.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-news-lib-dems-breakfast-layla-moran-naha-munchetty-1327026

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok thats fair enough. Seems a bit confusing to me. Layla Moran seemed to be of impression second referendum was always "plan a" and as an actual lib dem mp, I'm inclined to attach some weight to what she says here. Maybe she missed those t-shirts too.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-news-lib-dems-breakfast-layla-moran-naha-munchetty-1327026

I don't know what to say to that. Like I don't follow them or anything, but it was in their 'newspaper' back in March (quick Google search found that), they campaigned for the Europeans on it and made a big fuss about it at the time as the only party supporting revoke. I remember it coming up on my Twitter feed a lot at the time.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't know what to say to that. Like I don't follow them or anything, but it was in their 'newspaper' back in March (quick Google search found that), they campaigned for the Europeans on it and made a big fuss about it at the time as the only party supporting revoke. I remember it coming up on my Twitter feed a lot at the time.

I dont doubt it at all. Conference would be voted by members so that could have just been endorsing it as official policy and obviously coming to election it had more relevance as they could now talk about going into government. All i'd argue is it caused division at that point and some lib dems (norman lamb for one) saw the problems coming.

PeadarCo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely the intention is not to make all drugs for the NHS, but based on Pareto analysis, just make the 20% that make up the 80% cost. (Now the likelyhood is that 10% make up 90% of the cost). Now they would not start will all of them, but a subset that are easy to make, and worth it from a cast saving perspective. As competence builds, expand the number produced.

As another poster has said the idea of national drug producer is fantasy. It makes Johnsons idea of getting a super trade deal done with the EU in a year actually sound reasonable.

Pharmaceuticals require massive set up costs from the pure brick and mortar to the massive amount of regulatory hurdles any new drug has to clear. The most expensive drugs are usually those under patents. To bring any new drug to markets takes years bordering on decades and that's not counting of the many drugs that are developed but for various reasons don't get regulatory clearance. You are looking at billions and billions of pounds/euros. So the 20% you are talking about are likely to be under patent and or incredibly hard to replicate. As another poster has said the move towards biologics has not made things easier in terms of safely replicating new drugs.

Honestly the only way that anyone could consider the idea to be even remotely feasible is to have no knowledge of what what's involved in making medicine in the first place. The idea is crazier than Brexit. There are far far better and cheaper ways to get cheaper medicine.

If this is a key policy of Labour I really feel sorry for UK voters. They have a horrible choice to make between Labour and the Conservatives.

prawnsambo

PeadarCo wrote: »

Honestly the only way that anyone could consider the idea to be even remotely feasible is to have no knowledge of what what's involved in making medicine in the first place. The idea is crazier than Brexit. There are far far better and cheaper ways to get cheaper medicine.

If this is a key policy of Labour I really feel sorry for UK voters. They have a horrible choice to make between Labour and the Conservatives.

The only way I could think of them having any influence would be to invest in R&D. But that's eye-wateringly expensive, has no guarantee of success and can take donkeys years to produce something useful. Probably better to invest in education and develop the scientists. But of course brexit is already tearing the heart out of that cohort.

Strazdas

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you got the The Mirror, The Guardian, The Independent.
i don't think you can describe them as right wing by any stretch.

Yes, but 80% of newspaper sales in the UK are of right wing newspapers : the Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph etc.

It (England anyway) is actually a very right wing country when you see how their media is set up......the left are definitely a minority.

Letwin_Larry

Boris will have been much relieved to see AirForce1 take off. Trump is an accident waiting to happen, and likely to spout any old twaddle.

Sam Russell

PeadarCo wrote: »

As another poster has said the idea of national drug producer is fantasy. It makes Johnsons idea of getting a super trade deal done with the EU in a year actually sound reasonable.

Pharmaceuticals require massive set up costs from the pure brick and mortar to the massive amount of regulatory hurdles any new drug has to clear. The most expensive drugs are usually those under patents. To bring any new drug to markets takes years bordering on decades and that's not counting of the many drugs that are developed but for various reasons don't get regulatory clearance. You are looking at billions and billions of pounds/euros. So the 20% you are talking about are likely to be under patent and or incredibly hard to replicate. As another poster has said the move towards biologics has not made things easier in terms of safely replicating new drugs.

Honestly the only way that anyone could consider the idea to be even remotely feasible is to have no knowledge of what what's involved in making medicine in the first place. The idea is crazier than Brexit. There are far far better and cheaper ways to get cheaper medicine.

If this is a key policy of Labour I really feel sorry for UK voters. They have a horrible choice to make between Labour and the Conservatives.

I understand that point but the fact remains that the NHS was set up in a very short time by a bankrupt Gov in 1948. It was a unique endeavour but it worked. If they could do it then, surely they could do something like a pharma endeavour.

Now the NHS could go into partnership with an existing pharma company - it does not need to be a green field startup - it just needs to reduce the cost of drugs to the NHS. Even a net reduction of 10% would be huge.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

I understand that point but the fact remains that the NHS was set up in a very short time by a bankrupt Gov in 1948. It was a unique endeavour but it worked. If they could do it then, surely they could do something like a pharma endeavour.

Now the NHS could go into partnership with an existing pharma company - it does not need to be a green field startup - it just needs to reduce the cost of drugs to the NHS. Even a net reduction of 10% would be huge.

Except that the establishment of the NHS was the creation of a national framework incorporating the disparate healthcare institutions which were spread across the UK into a single organisation. It's not remotely the same as the state proposing to begin manufacturing tightly regulated medicines on a large scale.

PeadarCo

Sam Russell wrote: »

I understand that point but the fact remains that the NHS was set up in a very short time by a bankrupt Gov in 1948. It was a unique endeavour but it worked. If they could do it then, surely they could do something like a pharma endeavour.

Now the NHS could go into partnership with an existing pharma company - it does not need to be a green field startup - it just needs to reduce the cost of drugs to the NHS. Even a nt reduction of 10% would be huge.

Your post doesn't address any of the points that either myself or IamtheReign have made. The post is complete wishful thinking that shows no understanding of the points made. Brexiters have taken the exact same attitude who cares about the details we are the UK and that's all that matters. We can see where that wishful thinking has gotten them.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well have a read of this from last March: https://www.libdemvoice.org/revokearticle50-is-now-lib-dem-policy-60302.html

That’s an article from an activist, it even states in the article that they should call on Vince Cable to support revoking, acknowledging that it wasn’t actually the policy of the party leadership. It is also very specific about revoking in the circumstances of reaching the deadline without a deal - i.e. as a method of avoiding no deal.

It’s a simple matter of record that they adopted revoke as their Brexit policy in September, there are many sources online confirming that so I’m not sure why it keeps being refuted here.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49706643

ArmaniJeanss

ComRes

Still no breakthrough by the opposition.

Con 42% -1
Lab 32% -1
LD 12% -1
Brex 3% -1
Green 3% -1
SNP 4% +1
Other 6% +5

This was a 'ballot paper' poll, all respondents were picking from the ballot paper they'll be seeing on Thursday rather than just naming the party they'll vote for as in previous polls.
Probably explains the increase for Other.

quokula

PeadarCo wrote: »

As another poster has said the idea of national drug producer is fantasy. It makes Johnsons idea of getting a super trade deal done with the EU in a year actually sound reasonable.

Pharmaceuticals require massive set up costs from the pure brick and mortar to the massive amount of regulatory hurdles any new drug has to clear. The most expensive drugs are usually those under patents. To bring any new drug to markets takes years bordering on decades and that's not counting of the many drugs that are developed but for various reasons don't get regulatory clearance. You are looking at billions and billions of pounds/euros. So the 20% you are talking about are likely to be under patent and or incredibly hard to replicate. As another poster has said the move towards biologics has not made things easier in terms of safely replicating new drugs.

Honestly the only way that anyone could consider the idea to be even remotely feasible is to have no knowledge of what what's involved in making medicine in the first place. The idea is crazier than Brexit. There are far far better and cheaper ways to get cheaper medicine.

If this is a key policy of Labour I really feel sorry for UK voters. They have a horrible choice to make between Labour and the Conservatives.

I know not everyone reads every post in the thread and you probably didn’t see it, but it’s slightly frustrating that twice in the last few pages a bunch of posters have piled on to ridicule Labour’s pharma policy, twice I’ve linked articles and research and examples that show the thought that has been actually been put into it, twice this has resulted in no replies and the subject being changed, and twice someone has come along a few pages later to start ridiculing it from scratch again without looking into any of the details.

I’m going to try one more time to see if anyone reads anything. Here’s one link of interest:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospital-drug-making-venture-picks-antibiotics-as-first-products-11557892860

This is a scheme by a group of American hospitals who have banded together to create their own pharmaceuticals company and bring their prices down. I’m pretty sure the owners of these private hospitals are not loony lefty crazies.

This is just one of a number of programmes that Labour specifically cite in their policy document, along with other examples, studies and pilot schemes around the world.

Sure it’s not necessarily going to be smooth sailing, but it is really not some crazy idea out of the blue and is based on a mountain of research and pragmatic thinking.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

I know not everyone reads every post in the thread and you probably didn’t see it, but it’s slightly frustrating that twice in the last few pages a bunch of posters have piled on to ridicule Labour’s pharma policy, twice I’ve linked articles and research and examples that show the thought that has been actually been put into it, twice this has resulted in no replies and the subject being changed, and twice someone has come along a few pages later to start ridiculing it from scratch again without looking into any of the details.

I’m going to try one more time to see if anyone reads anything. Here’s one link of interest:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospital-drug-making-venture-picks-antibiotics-as-first-products-11557892860

This is a scheme by a group of American hospitals who have banded together to create their own pharmaceuticals company and bring their prices down. I’m pretty sure the owners of these private hospitals are not loony lefty crazies.

This is just one of a number of programmes that Labour specifically cite in their policy document, along with other examples, studies and pilot schemes around the world.

Sure it’s not necessarily going to be smooth sailing, but it is really not some crazy idea out of the blue and is based on a mountain of research and pragmatic thinking.

I read that link. And it really didn't merit any kind of comparison with the UK. For very obvious reasons. There are as much as 1000% differences between medications in the UK and the US. And there are four times as many people in the US. So the market is that much bigger. They could cut the price of medicines in half and still make money. And they have a much bigger pool of chemists and scientists to draw from.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Now the NHS could go into partnership with an existing pharma company - it does not need to be a green field startup - it just needs to reduce the cost of drugs to the NHS. Even a net reduction of 10% would be huge.

Nope. A 100% reduction in the in cost of pharmaceuticals would represent a 10% saving on the overall annual cost of the NHS, maybe less.

The NHS, like most public health services is simply run inefficiently, with wastage on an atrocious scale that just wouldn't be tolerated within a private context. That's not an argument in favour of private healthcare, but a criticism of the fiercely defended tradition of governments putting up with (or encouraging) the worst management practices. Health service unions are equally responsible.

What's causing the greatest strain on these public resources these days (you'll see the same thing in Ireland, and it's being protested against here too in France) are two categories of patient: the elderly being kept alive well beyond their "best before" date, and the "lifestyle choice" brigade who eat, drink and smoke their way through the tax-payers' money because there's no personal come-back.

Throw in a bunch of parents who use A&E as a substitute for common sense and basic first aid skill (or sheer impatience) and these patients require an enormous amount of nursing time and hospital space, which adds up to about 90% of the NHS's budget. Building a drug-manufacturing plant won't make the slightest dent in that cost. Johnson's 40 imaginary hospitals won't help either, seeing as there aren't enough nurses to staff the ones they've got at the moment. What both parties should be promising are measures to reduce the number of patients. Good luck with that ... ! :pac:

McGiver

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Given the economic projections that underpin Brexit and the reality that individual sectors will have to be sacrificed in the coming trade negotiations, the next election when it comes (with Brexit “done†but inarguably a bad thing) will see them decisively rejected at the polls.

Doubt it. Thatcher destroyed large parts of the economy and did Labour win thereafter or reversed anything? If Tories win, Brexit happens and they deregulate and sell off everything left then the changes will be irreversible especially if they become a de facto vassal of the US.

McGiver

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Given the economic projections that underpin Brexit and the reality that individual sectors will have to be sacrificed in the coming trade negotiations, the next election when it comes (with Brexit “done†but inarguably a bad thing) will see them decisively rejected at the polls.

Doubt it. Thatcher destroyed large parts of the economy and did Labour win thereafter or reversed anything? If Tories win, Brexit happens and they deregulate and sell off everything left then the changes will be irreversible especially if they become a de facto vassal of the US.

PeadarCo

quokula wrote: »

I know not everyone reads every post in the thread and you probably didn’t see it, but it’s slightly frustrating that twice in the last few pages a bunch of posters have piled on to ridicule Labour’s pharma policy, twice I’ve linked articles and research and examples that show the thought that has been actually been put into it, twice this has resulted in no replies and the subject being changed, and twice someone has come along a few pages later to start ridiculing it from scratch again without looking into any of the details.

I’m going to try one more time to see if anyone reads anything. Here’s one link of interest:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospital-drug-making-venture-picks-antibiotics-as-first-products-11557892860

This is a scheme by a group of American hospitals who have banded together to create their own pharmaceuticals company and bring their prices down. I’m pretty sure the owners of these private hospitals are not loony lefty crazies.

This is just one of a number of programmes that Labour specifically cite in their policy document, along with other examples, studies and pilot schemes around the world.

Sure it’s not necessarily going to be smooth sailing, but it is really not some crazy idea out of the blue and is based on a mountain of research and pragmatic thinking.

You do realise that you are talking about just 2 drugs and both appear to be generics which don't have patent issues and in the US at least and I'd presume the EU would be similar face far less regulatory hurdles than a new drug. It also appears that the supply is relatively small. However the idea does make sense in the context of the issues mentioned in the article.

However going from the relatively small scale operation mentioned in the article to supplying the entire NHS is just fantasy for the points already mentioned. To get to the scale required you are talking decades. That's to build the facilities, hire and train all relevant personal, test the stuff, get all the production issues sorted and ongoing investment in R and D. You are talking about tens of billions on an ongoing basis. Take a look at any large pharmaceutical companies accounts and you will quickly see the amounts of money you are talking about.

It's not even about left/right/whatever political direction you are on about it's an incredibly inefficient and expensive way of getting cheaper drugs. While I'd argue patents are a necessary evil in pharmaceuticals their is a conversation to be had around the details and how they impact the generics market. There are other areas for discussion.

However in short the example you bring up doesn't scale to a national pharmaceutical company. Pharmaceuticals obviously can be done by small companies. There are lots of those companies out there. But it doesn't get around the fact that setting up a national pharmaceutical manufacturer borders on fantasy due to time, people and money constraints.

amacca

CelticRambler wrote: »

the elderly being kept alive well beyond their "best before" date

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your opinions on the "lifestyle choice brigade" but I'd wonder how or who is determining the sell by date for the elderly?

CelticRambler

quokula wrote: »

I know not everyone reads every post in the thread and you probably didn’t see it, but it’s slightly frustrating that twice in the last few pages a bunch of posters have piled on to ridicule Labour’s pharma policy, twice I’ve linked articles and research and examples that show the thought that has been actually been put into it, twice this has resulted in no replies and the subject being changed, and twice someone has come along a few pages later to start ridiculing it from scratch again without looking into any of the details.

I’m going to try one more time to see if anyone reads anything. Here’s one link of interest:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospital-drug-making-venture-picks-antibiotics-as-first-products-11557892860

This is a scheme by a group of American hospitals who have banded together to create their own pharmaceuticals company and bring their prices down. I’m pretty sure the owners of these private hospitals are not loony lefty crazies.

Well, I fall into the category of those who missed your earlier posts, and that WSJ article is paywalled, but there is not point in Labour using a US venture as a model. Why? For the very same reason they don't want the NHS being sold to the Americans! Healthcare in the US, and all the costs associated with it are extortionate, which means that almost anyone can "save" money by forming some kind of cooperative. A bit like you can "save" 300€ on a new iPhone 11 Pro if you get lucky on a Black Friday or a Cyber Monday.

Could it work in the UK? In theory, yes; in practice, no. I found one of your earlier links, which revealed that the company in question is going to produce fourteen specific drugs. Fourteen. 14. My parents take than number between them and they're not "sick" :rolleyes:

So given that the cost of medicines as part of the overall NHS spending is a miniscule 10%, by the time you've taken out the experimental/new-arrival/under patent medicines, and by the time you've taken out the generics that are already being bought at rock-bottom prices, a pharma-factory could probably save the NHS something like 0.005% per annum - say £10m ... at a cost of about £100m pa to keep the wheels turning.

Now here's another point to consider: where does the UK get its medicines from? Surprisingly enough, not from the US. Most of them come from a trading bloc to the east, one which they're about to leave because #TakeBackControl. The EU is a hugely successful pharmaceutical manufacturer and runs a significant trade surplus against US imports. And where does the EU get the rest of its imported drugs from? Switzerland (mainly).

All-in-all, Corbyn's plan to build pharma-factories is daft and economically unsound, and Johnson's plan to "get Brexit done" is daft and economically unsound. Corbyn's plan, however, has the slight advantage that he can "see the light" before he spends any money on it, and the English Patient won't be any worse off. Johnson's plan, however is irreversible ... although it may help solve the NHS crisis by ensuring the speedy death of greater numbers of patients.

CelticRambler

amacca wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your opinions on the "lifestyle choice brigade" but I'd wonder how or who is determining the sell by date for the elderly?

"best before" is not the same as "sell by" ! However, the last time I was in England, I heard some "senior healthcare person" (Irish, but working in England, can't remember exactly who he was) saying that, in today's highly medicalised society, we have a real problem with not letting people die. He was arguing in favour of diverting more resources to hospice care where they could be let/helped die with dignity, and freeing up doctors and nurses to treat the want-to-keep-living.

This is the kind of debate that would make a real difference to the provision of services over the course of the coming decades, but no political party is brave enough to put it in their manifesto. Much easier to bandy about a load of airy-fairy figures and promises with no specific implementation date.

quokula

So the company I mentioned is a non profit company set up by a consortium of 500 American hospitals. The NHS has 1600 hospitals, so the difference in size is not a huge order of magnitude - I don’t know the number of patients per hospital but the point is this isn’t comparing 20 hospitals to 20,000 hospitals, it is a vaguely similarly enough large number that similar programs could apply.

The company was set up in 2018 and is slowly ramping up from an initial 2 drugs to 14 now. It is specifically targeting drugs that were expensive or difficult to source for the hospitals.

Labour aren’t planning to suddenly manufacture 100% of NHS drugs overnight, but to follow this model and focus on the drugs with the biggest potential wins for the NHS.

Also, this is just one example Labour cite, I picked it out because it is a venture by American private hospitals which means it can’t be accused of being some misguided ideological left wing endeavour. Labour cite other examples from Denmark to Netherlands to (and I know this will invite criticism) Cuba.

I’m just trying to point out that this isn’t some mad loony left idea and is actually something with some research behind it and with examples elsewhere in the world. Labour have produced a 50 page document with lots of references to supporting research and lots of descriptions of feasibility studies and pilot schemes. It’s not something John McDonnell sketched out on the back of an envelope one day, which is the way a lot of people are trying to portray it.

CelticRambler

quokula wrote: »

It is specifically targeting drugs that were expensive or difficult to source for the hospitals.

We don't have that problem in Europe. End of business case.

The UK may have that problem post Brexit, but then they'll be dealing with shortages of hundreds of drugs, not just a couple that meet the right cost-benefit analysis.

The US has shortages because (a) their pharma industry is a deregulated mess; and (b) they depend on the EU for several products, and the EU is a bit funny about sending potentially lethal drugs to a country that practises death by lethal injection.

quokula wrote: »

I’m just trying to point out that this isn’t some mad loony left idea and is actually something with some research behind it and with examples elsewhere in the world.

Yeah, but that's the same distorted logic employed by the Alternative Arrangements crowd in respect of their "frictionless border" ideas - you can't take any old model from somewhere else in the world and apply it to our European context.