General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

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.

For somebody who complained about their posts not being read and replied to, you're not doing a very good job of reading the replies.

• The US hospitals are just doing it for 14 drugs
• US drug prices can be as much as 1000% more than UK prices
• US hospitals service a higher population
• The cost of drugs to the NHS in total amounts to 10% of their budget
• Generics would be a very small proportion of that 10%
• The most expensive drugs are the ones under patent. Unless the policy includes R&D, that's not going to change.
• If it does include R&D, well that's a huge cost. With no guarantees
• Money would be better spent on improving health generally.

That's just some of the highlights.

Joe_ Public

Oof, that was a tough interview with Sarah Woollaston on newsnight. Brave move i would concede tackling an issue around transgender like that but she was in knots trying to explain it.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

For somebody who complained about their posts not being read and replied to, you're not doing a very good job of reading the replies.

• The US hospitals are just doing it for 14 drugs
• US drug prices can be as much as 1000% more than UK prices
• US hospitals service a higher population
• The cost of drugs to the NHS in total amounts to 10% of their budget
• Generics would be a very small proportion of that 10%
• The most expensive drugs are the ones under patent. Unless the policy includes R&D, that's not going to change.
• If it does include R&D, well that's a huge cost. With no guarantees
• Money would be better spent on improving health generally.

That's just some of the highlights.

You didn’t read what I said - I made points directly relating to some of that after reading your previous reply.

It’s making 14 drugs so far, one year after starting. It’s not going to make 14 drugs ever. Labour are proposing a similar gradual ramp up.

It’s not serving the whole of the US, it’s serving 500 hospitals which is not entirely incomparable to the NHS’s 1600, so your point about the US population is not valid.

The NHS drug prices are confidential, so you can’t say for sure that everything is so much cheaper than the US - it’s cheaper to the end user of course as the government subsidises prescriptions. There are cases of the NHS not being able to supply drugs due to cost.

R&D is not within the remit of the company specified as they manufacture generics. Labour’s policy is also clear about manufacturing generics.

R&D does play a separate part in Labour’s policy. Other examples and studies are given for that. Research is cited that shows drug patents are awarded for 20 years (and can be extended) and total costs are recouped on average within 5 years, though obviously there can be huge variance here. More importantly, R&D often gets focussed on the most potentially profitable drugs rather than the ones that would be most beneficial. Governments already subsidise this research too, with estimates of 30-50% of all research already being paid for by governments before private companies take over the patents.

The policy when it comes to R&D though is much more focussed on feasibility studies to see what can be done to improve what they see as a broken system (which is already widely recognised as such https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/uk-drug-discovery-model-must-break-and-change/3008545.article#/ ) rather than a hard funding commitment.

CelticRambler

quokula wrote: »

There are cases of the NHS not being able to supply drugs due to cost.

There is no "drugs" budget in the NHS. Funds are allocated for sectors of care, and from that someone has to decide how much to spend on staff, how much on tests, facilities and equipment, and then out of what's left, how much to spend on what drugs. When there's a problem with "not being able to supply drugs due to cost" it usually means that there's one (literally one) patient who needs a drug costing £5000 per dose, and to treat that one patient means that 5000 other patients will be denied treatment for their much more cost-effective medication.

quokula wrote: »

More importantly, R&D often gets focussed on the most potentially profitable drugs rather than the ones that would be most beneficial. Governments already subsidise this research too, with estimates of 30-50% of all research already being paid for by governments before private companies take over the patents.

The policy when it comes to R&D though is much more focussed on feasibility studies to see what can be done to improve what they see as a broken system (which is already widely recognised as such https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/uk-drug-discovery-model-must-break-and-change/3008545.article#/ ) rather than a hard funding commitment.

The system isn't "broken" - it's a simple example of the law of diminishing returns. I worked for a time in the campus referred to in that article (long before it became The Catapult ) and saw first-hand the failures that they refer to. You can't force biology to be "productive" in a western economic sense. There are a limited number of sick people in the world, with a limited number of diseases that respond to pharmacological treatment. As more companies identify cures/treatments for the known spectrum of disease, chasing a useful molecule for the weird and wonderful ones that remain becomes increasingly difficult. For the most part, the most "beneficial" drugs have already been found, are being produced in generic form, and cost relatively little.

But I'll tell you what makes a difference to R&D: scientists. Funding for scientists, and the freedom to live and work close to the labs that are doing the research. Guess which sector in Switzerland was really hammered by their decision (subsequently overturned) to restrict the Free movement of EU nationals? In the space of a few months, the Swiss pharma sector lost about €20bn of funding and hundreds of EU scientists' contracts were terminated or not renewed. Getting Brexit Done à la Johnson will do far more harm to pharma R&D in the UK than any saving or boost to the sector that might arise from Labour's proposals.

Letwin_Larry

am i the only person thinking that this election is all but over?
corbyn just hasn't managed to land any decent punches on the Tories.
Boris has boxed clever and managed to avoid a scrap. like him or loathe him cummings has managed this campaign very well.
the polls have narrowed somewhat. but not enough imo.

unless something fairly spectacular happens, i dont see a hung parliament. i see a fairly comfortable, working majority for the Tories.

Strazdas

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

am i the only person thinking that this election is all but over?
corbyn just hasn't managed to land any decent punches on the Tories.
Boris has boxed clever and managed to avoid a scrap. like him or loathe him cummings has managed this campaign very well.
the polls have narrowed somewhat. but not enough imo.

unless something fairly spectacular happens, i dont see a hung parliament. i see a fairly comfortable, working majority for the Tories.

Problem is though that every recent GE has not gone to plan. Nobody predicted the Tory - LD coalition in 2010, or Cameron getting a majority in 2015 nor May failing to get one in 2017.

Nothing would surprise me next week.

Berserker5

Corbyn was too forthright about nationalization and big spending

Not definitive on brexit either

Don't think Boris did anything special

Rjd2

Strazdas wrote: »

Problem is though that every recent GE has not gone to plan. Nobody predicted the Tory - LD coalition in 2010, or Cameron getting a majority in 2015 nor May failing to get one in 2017.

Nothing would surprise me next week.

Could be anything really.

Tory majority fav obviously but Labour just need to squeeze the lead by another few points and its in hung parliament territory.

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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.

That's true, and it probably won't harm him that he was caught on camera enjoying the slagging of him with the lads.

Tory HQ were dreading that for sure.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

You didn’t read what I said - I made points directly relating to some of that after reading your previous reply.

And left out some of the salient ones. Like the disparity in costs.

quokula wrote: »

It’s not serving the whole of the US, it’s serving 500 hospitals which is not entirely incomparable to the NHS’s 1600, so your point about the US population is not valid.

I didn't say the whole US, I said higher populations. But the main reason they are doing this is because of lack of competition which is driving up prices. A point you completely ignored/deflected.

quokula wrote: »

The NHS drug prices are confidential, so you can’t say for sure that everything is so much cheaper than the US - it’s cheaper to the end user of course as the government subsidises prescriptions. There are cases of the NHS not being able to supply drugs due to cost.

The NHS drug prices are confidential because they are usually cheaper to them than other health services in Europe. Not because they are very expensive. And there is plenty of data available to compare prices generally between Europe and the US. Epipens costing up to $350 for a two pack or £8.80 to NHS patients or €30 each off the shelf.

quokula wrote: »

R&D is not within the remit of the company specified as they manufacture generics. Labour’s policy is also clear about manufacturing generics.

I didn't say it was. I said it was possibly a better approach to take, but would require patience and a lot of money. The best option would be to invest in education and not brexit out of the market that keeps drug prices down and shares development work. The European Medicines Agency used to be in London until a year ago.

TL;DR, drug prices are not a problem in Europe. They are in the US.

Also, drug patent lengths are indeed 20 years in the UK. But it can take up to 15 years (10 minimum) of that to get the drug developed, tested, approved and on the market. So the real patent length during which the company can recoup development cost is as little as 5 years.

IAmTheReign

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.

Unfortunately I can't read the article because it's paywalled, but the two antibiotics they mention are both already available as generics on the market meaning they're likely already available to the NHS cheaply. From what I can read it says they're planning to distribute them, not to manufacture them so it seems likely all they're doing is skipping wholesalers to purchase in bulk and distribute themselves, which is what the NHS already does. US drug distributors and wholesalers put a massive mark up even on generic drugs, which isn't a problem in the UK

prawnsambo

The dirty tricks have started. Apparently the LDs approached the Tories about a coalition deal last week. Bizarre that anyone would think this is likely, but clearly the Tories do. Illogical, stupid and pretty transparent, but that's where we are I suppose.

Oh, and apparently Corbyn wants to kill eight and a half month old babies (no, I have no idea either).
And also doesn't watch the Queen's speech on Christmas day. That's supposedly worse than lying to her for some reason that only the tabloids can reconcile.

Basically the same old crap being shovelled onto Facebook and other social media that was done during the referendum campaign. Some of it so outlandish, you'd worry about the mental state of anyone who swallowed it.

prawnsambo

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't read the article because it's paywalled, but the two antibiotics they mention are both already available as generics on the market meaning they're likely already available to the NHS cheaply. From what I can read it says they're planning to distribute them, not to manufacture them so it seems likely all they're doing is skipping wholesalers to purchase in bulk and distribute themselves, which is what the NHS already does. US drug distributors and wholesalers put a massive mark up even on generic drugs, which isn't a problem in the UK

No, they are going to manufacture alright:

Intermountain Healthcare made a splash in January when it said it and other major hospital systems, fed up with drug shortages and skyrocketing prices, planned to manufacture their own generic medicines.

But as I said above, there's a shocking lack of competition in the US drugs market allowing criminals like Martin Shkreli to raise the price of out of patent Daraprim by 5000%.

Russman

prawnsambo wrote: »

The dirty tricks have started. Apparently the LDs approached the Tories about a coalition deal last week. Bizarre that anyone would think this is likely, but clearly the Tories do. Illogical, stupid and pretty transparent, but that's where we are I suppose.

Oh, and apparently Corbyn wants to kill eight and a half month old babies (no, I have no idea either).
And also doesn't watch the Queen's speech on Christmas day. That's supposedly worse than lying to her for some reason that only the tabloids can reconcile.

Basically the same old crap being shovelled onto Facebook and other social media that was done during the referendum campaign. Some of it so outlandish, you'd worry about the mental state of anyone who swallowed it.

Unfortunately that's where the UK (well, mostly England) is right now.
IMO Labour are falling into the old "if you're explaining, you're losing" trap. Large tranches of society only want quips and one line answers and have no attention span to look at details. Hence "get Brexit done" is enough for the masses.

I was watching one of the UK news programs last night and they were talking about food banks and supermarkets specifically selling cheap food to the most vulnerable (can't remember the town tbh, I was really only half-watching it). They interviewed a few people who were depending on this kind of support and one guy, when asked about the election and who he'd vote for to improve the lot of these people, said ".....its controversial, but I like what I'm hearing from Boris...." The mind boggles.

Hard to see anything other than a landslide for the conservatives, obviously FPTP can throw up anything, but Labour just can't seem to get a coherent message out.

Letwin_Larry

Berserker5 wrote: »

Corbyn was too forthright about nationalization and big spending

Not definitive on brexit either

Don't think Boris did anything special

i agree. but isn't it shocking that somebody so obviously (to me at least) dishonest, dishonorable, prejudiced and feckless, but with a sprinkling of charisma doesn't have to do much to become the next PM?

just a small example. i mean the whole thing of Trump & Boris keeping their distance was so obviously stage-managed. they were like 2 married people from work who were having an affair, but didn't want the rest of us to know it, even though the whole office knows exactly what's going on.

says a lot about UK society, their opposition parties, and their electoral system.

robinph

Russman wrote: »

Hard to see anything other than a landslide for the conservatives, obviously FPTP can throw up anything, but Labour just can't seem to get a coherent message out.

It's not the lack of a coherent message, it's the lack of people having the required attention span to listen to it.

Lack of a snappy three word slogan that means nothing is the problem.

CelticRambler

Russman wrote: »

I was watching one of the UK news programs last night and they were talking about food banks and supermarkets specifically selling cheap food to the most vulnerable (can't remember the town tbh, I was really only half-watching it). They interviewed a few people who were depending on this kind of support and one guy, when asked about the election and who he'd vote for to improve the lot of these people, said ".....its controversial, but I like what I'm hearing from Boris...." The mind boggles.

By coincidence, last night I watched a DW Documentary on the equivalent demographic in the US. It's the same: Trump is taking away their jobs, their free healthcare and their food stamps, leaving them homeless and entirely dependent on charity ... but the guy interviewed is going to vote Trump again because "he looks after his family, and that's important." WTF? :eek:

prawnsambo

robinph wrote: »

It's not the lack of a coherent message, it's the lack of people having the required attention span to listen to it.

Lack of a snappy three word slogan that means nothing is the problem.

I could think of a few off the top of my head:

• Get Boris gone
• Stop Tory cuts
• Save the NHS

"For the many, not the few" is getting tired now. And never really had that snappiness to it.

Joe_ Public

Berserker5 wrote: »

Corbyn was too forthright about nationalization and big spending

Not definitive on brexit either

Don't think Boris did anything special

Thing is every poll being produced for last number of years nationalisation is popular with the electorate. They like it. The broadband policy went down well. That will win a few votes imo.

Brexit was always the problem. Always going to be the problem. Whatever way they swung it. Antisemitism being the other main issue though not quite a defining one i'd say.

Russman

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thing is every poll being produced for last number of years nationalisation is popular with the electorate. They like it. The broadband policy went down well. That will win a few votes imo.

Brexit was always the problem. Always going to be the problem. Whatever way they swung it. Antisemitism being the other main issue though not quite a defining one i'd say.

This exactly. Although I don't think the antisemitism thing is that big in reality, just big enough to be a problem. Its a Brexit election and was always going to be one, and JC just can't bring himself to say his true position. Where Clinton once said "the economy, stupid", in this case its "Brexit, stupid"

Joe_ Public

Russman wrote: »

This exactly. Although I don't think the antisemitism thing is that big in reality, just big enough to be a problem. Its a Brexit election and was always going to be one, and JC just can't bring himself to say his true position. Where Clinton once said "the economy, stupid", in this case its "Brexit, stupid"

Yes, seems obvious to me alright. But as for corbyn coming out as either a remainer or a leaver, how do people figure this will help things? I'm not convinced. They're doing ok with remain votes according to polls but haemorrhaging leave votes. So should corbyn come out and say he backs leave? Just dont believe there were ever any easy choices there.

Letwin_Larry

forget about Brexit, who cares about about your NHS, Defence or Security of the nation, nevermind alleged AntiSemitism or Islamaphobia, what REALLY MATTERS is,

do the party leaders watch The Queens' Speech!

Four Brexit Party MEPs quit to back Conservatives, it has been announced (quite 'prominent' ones, too, for anyone who has followed the party since its inception).

Even though I support the Brexit Party, my concern was always with how it would split the vote in marginal seats. I suggested last week that something like this was going to happen closer to election day. I'll make the added prediction now that many more will follow over the course of the next couple of days.

A landslide Conservative majority is becoming more likelier by the hour. The latest poll by Savanta Comres puts the Conservatives on 42% and Labour on 32%.

Four MEPs are quitting the Brexit Party and urging people to back the Conservatives at the upcoming election.

Annunziata Rees-Mogg - brother of cabinet minister Jacob - as well as Lance Forman, John Longworth and Lucy Harris are due to announce their decision later today.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1202344800562958337

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, seems obvious to me alright. But as for corbyn coming out as either a remainer or a leaver, how do people figure this will help things? I'm not convinced. They're doing ok with remain votes according to polls but haemorrhaging leave votes. So should corbyn come out and say he backs leave? Just dont believe there were ever any easy choices there.

Yeah this has always been the problem for Labour. They're a party of remain MPs representing a long list of Leave constituencies. They could possibly have walked the election with a strong Leave position but they were never going to campaign on something they don't believe in (and we wouldn't be having an election now if Labour supported leave anyway)

Their policy is leaning a bit too far remain for the electorate, a pure direct soft Brexit position or a pure referendum position between the current deal and remain might have been preferable to their proposal of a referendum between soft brexit and remain. But they're also trying to take a Brexit position that will minimally harm the economy so they can get on with their other plans, so the policy they have is probably the most pragmatic one.

With that said, Brexit is diminishing in importance as the election goes on - I saw it was noted that in Question Time last week there wasn't actually a single Brexit question, probably the first time that's happened since 2016. The NHS, economy, renationalisation, response to terrorism, austerity, education, pensions, antisemitism, islamophobia have all taken up a lot of airtime as the election has gone on.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, seems obvious to me alright. But as for corbyn coming out as either a remainer or a leaver, how do people figure this will help things? I'm not convinced. They're doing ok with remain votes according to polls but haemorrhaging leave votes. So should corbyn come out and say he backs leave? Just dont believe there were ever any easy choices there.

The function of a leader is to lead - to advise what is in the best interests of the country they lead.

By remaining neutral, Corbyn abdicates this fundamental responsibility. Even worse, he's doing it for political self-interest, because if his side lost, he doesn't want to end up resigning like another Cameron. That alone is reason for condemnation. Given this is the biggest constitutional change in recent memory, it's even more incumbent upon Corbyn to navigate the electorate through those turbulent waters.

Furthermore, Leave voters can see that what's going on is not a "second referendum", a replay of 2016, but rather a vote worse than 2016 where Leave has been completely eliminated as an option. Leave is now replaced with "staying in CU/SM, jurisdiction of European Court, paying monies, but outside any law-generating bodies" - which is worse than being a member of the EU; a total insult to Leave voters who now have no credible Leave option. Even I would vote Remain in such a referendum, that's how bad their "negotiation" proposal is. In other words, the entire policy is a total sham. That's why Leave voters are infuriated. If Labour were serious, it would be Labour's deal versus No Deal.

To make things worse, if a Labour/Lib Dem government were to arise in some political arrangement, it may even lead to a different franchise - with 16 and 17 year olds and European citizens in the UK getting the vote - a complete sham, again, because it's not replayed on 2016 terms. The entire system is orchestrated to stop Brexit.

Why would any legitimate Labour Leave voter vote for a party that's turning their backs on how they voted?

That's why Labour Leave voters are holding their nose and voting Conservative in overwhelming numbers.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

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.

the way I read this, is that a number of hospitals are applying Porter's five forces. They need to disrupt the cosy cartel by creating a new entrant to help them get some form of leverage and take the market from one where the seller has control, to one where the buyer has more clout.

In the UK, the NHS is the market and the drugs companies do not have the same kind of power.

LeinsterDub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

am i the only person thinking that this election is all but over?
corbyn just hasn't managed to land any decent punches on the Tories.
Boris has boxed clever and managed to avoid a scrap. like him or loathe him cummings has managed this campaign very well.
the polls have narrowed somewhat. but not enough imo.

unless something fairly spectacular happens, i dont see a hung parliament. i see a fairly comfortable, working majority for the Tories.

What is it you think Cummings has done? To me this entire campaign has been a non event. Labour have been useless, Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot by saying they'd revoke and as soon as Brexit Party bottled it the chance of any moving and mixing disappeared.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The function of a leader is to lead - to advise what is in the best interests of the country they lead.

By remaining neutral, Corbyn abdicates this fundamental responsibility. Even worse, he's doing it for political self-interest, because if his side lost, he doesn't want to end up resigning like another Cameron. That alone is reason for condemnation. Given this is the biggest constitutional change in recent memory, it's even more incumbent upon Corbyn to navigate the electorate through those turbulent waters.

Furthermore, Leave voters can see that what's going on is not a "second referendum", a replay of 2016, but rather a vote worse than 2016 where Leave has been completely eliminated as an option. Leave is now replaced with "staying in CU/SM, jurisdiction of European Court, paying monies, but outside any law-generating bodies" - which is worse than being a member of the EU; a total insult to Leave voters who now have no credible Leave option. Even I would vote Remain in such a referendum, that's how bad their "negotiation" proposal is. In other words, the entire policy is a total sham. That's why Leave voters are infuriated. If Labour were serious, it would be Labour's deal versus No Deal.

To make things worse, if a Labour/Lib Dem government were to arise in some political arrangement, it may even lead to a different franchise - with 16 and 17 year olds and European citizens in the UK getting the vote - a complete sham, again, because it's not replayed on 2016 terms. The entire system is orchestrated to stop Brexit.

Why would any legitimate Labour Leave voter vote for a party that's turning their backs on how they voted?

That's why Labour Leave voters are holding their nose and voting Conservative in overwhelming numbers.

You're having a go at corbyn which i couldnt care less about, while your great hero is the man who had 2 articles written supporting both sides of the divide. So spare me the lazy leadership and self interest tropes if you dont mind.

Labour voters voting tory in overwhelming numbers? What figures are you working off there if you dont mind me asking?

Joe_ Public

Let's put your response in some terse context.

Originally, this was your question (a legitimate question, may I add):

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, seems obvious to me alright. But as for corbyn coming out as either a remainer or a leaver, how do people figure this will help things? I'm not convinced.

My direct response to that question:

Deleted User wrote: »

The function of a leader is to lead - to advise what is in the best interests of the country they lead.

By remaining neutral, Corbyn abdicates this fundamental responsibility. Even worse, he's doing it for political self-interest, because if his side lost, he doesn't want to end up resigning like another Cameron. That alone is reason for condemnation. Given this is the biggest constitutional change in recent memory, it's even more incumbent upon Corbyn to navigate the electorate through those turbulent waters.

In response to my answering your question, you say:

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You're having a go at corbyn which i couldnt care less about, while your great hero is the man who had 2 articles written supporting both sides of the divide. So spare me the lazy leadership and self interest tropes if you dont mind.

So, in conclusion:

• You are clearly uninterested in learning about the possible reasons why Corbyn should be condemned for his neutral stance.
• You then divert to my support for Johnson, as if that somehow whitewashes my legitimate answer to your question.

I'll let the readers of this message make up their mind. :rolleyes:

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

The function of a leader is to lead - to advise what is in the best interests of the country they lead.

And we currently have a country that voted indecisively one way or the other in the Brexit referendum and if Corbyn happens to get the keys to No 10 will have also voted indecisively one way or another on the matter of Brexit in both of the last two general elections and nobody is still entirely sure what leave actually means or why it should happen.

So the leader saying that they will not take sides one way or another, but will instead negotiate reasonable middle ground option that won't overly piss off either extreme and then put that to the people to decide is entirely reasonable.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Let's put your response in some terse context.

Originally, this was your question (a legitimate question, may I add):



My direct response to that question:



In response to my answering your question, you say:



So, in conclusion:

• You are clearly uninterested in learning about the possible reasons why Corbyn should be condemned for his neutral stance.
• You then divert to my support for Johnson, as if that somehow whitewashes my legitimate answer to your question.

I'll let the readers of this message make up their mind. :rolleyes:

I'm perfectly open to criticism of corbyns position and always have been. This stuff about leadership is a red herring and the comparison to johnson is most certainly appropriate. Condemnation? Has he committed a crime or something? He has explained that his interest is in bringing both sides of the question together. People can criticise that and dislike it as policy, but to condemn it? Thats just well out of order.

So theres a chance corbyn might be acting out of self interest. In an election campaign? Who'd ever have thought it?