General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

CelticRambler

quokula wrote: »

And drug rationing does happen. I have personal experience of being given a private prescription for a drug by my NHS GP, as the NHS wouldn't cover it, but I was able to purchase it myself (it was available on the NHS under extremely limited circumstances which wouldn't cover me, even though my GP believed I needed it)

Yeah rationing. That's an internal NHS matter, not a problem with the supply of drugs. Ditto for having them "in stock". These are deficiencies and/or failures of NHS management, not problems with Europe's access to a huge variety of medicines, and they're not going to be solved by building a factory to produce a small handful of drugs that are readily available on the open market.

Edit: if you want to know what drugs are actually in short supply within the EU, they're listed here - all five of them (out of tens of thousands of licensed medicines, maybe more)

quokula

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah rationing. That's an internal NHS matter, not a problem with the supply of drugs. Ditto for having them "in stock". These are deficiencies and/or failures of NHS management, not problems with Europe's access to a huge variety of medicines, and they're not going to be solved by building a factory to produce a small handful of drugs that are readily available on the open market.

They're not rationing things on a whim for no reason - it's based on their ability to supply the drugs in question, which comes from their ability to purchase those drugs at a price acceptable to them.

You can keep saying that every single possible drug you can imagine is cheaply and easily available and the NHS is just inexplicably choosing not to purchase them, but personally, as someone who's been directly affected by this in the past, I'm happy to see any attempt to rectify the problem over sticking fingers in ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

CelticRambler

quokula wrote: »

You can keep saying that every single possible drug you can imagine is cheaply and easily available and the NHS is just inexplicably choosing not to purchase them, but personally, as someone who's been directly affected by this in the past, I'm happy to see any attempt to rectify the problem over sticking fingers in ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the supply to NHS patients - but those problems will not be resolved by building a factory to produce a minuscule fraction of the drugs purchased by NHS managers. There is absolutely no business case for building a co-op pharma factory such as the American one you've used as an example in Europe. Our pharma industry is considerably better regulated and managed than that in the US.

When there's a shortage in the NHS, it's not inexplicably choosing not to purchase them, it's quite deliberately choosing not to purchase medicines for which the cost vs. benefit equation has not been successfully argued by the doctors who treat the patients who may (or may not) be helped by that medicine.

So if those NHS managers have decided that drug Z is not worth keeping on the shelf right now, what makes you think they're going to decide that it's worth building a whole factory at enormous cost so as to have it on the shelf in 10-15 years' time?

The other scenario that creates a (usually temporary) shortage is when there's a problem at a global level, usually arising from disruption to the manufacture or supply of a component molecule. Again, your pharma-factory isn't going to be immune to that either. If the NHS managers can't get their hands on drugs that are readily available on the open market (in the EU), what makes you think they'll be any better ordering the raw materials needed for their handful of cheap generics?

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

As explained many times, pointless lumping hard brexit and soft brexit supporters together as one bloc. A good portion of them will simply never support the others position. They cannot be put together as a united front, just to make some sort of point. They'd have left last march if that was the case.

Exactly. The point that many Leave voters would vote Remain rather than crash out seems to be missed or ignored by those supporting Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. The point that many Leave voters would vote Remain rather than crash out seems to be missed or ignored by those supporting Brexit.

The reality is that no significant change has taken place.

The UK is still split, as it was in 2016, and we now have a clear choice on the table - with the majority now opting for the Johnson Deal or, in second place, a second referendum. Nobody is supporting revocation, which speaks volumes.

In any event, we are where we are.

Similarly, if there was a General Election result in a year's time which puts Boris down from 42 points to 37 points, that wouldn't be a cogent argument in favour of a second General Election, would it!? No, it wouldn't.

Those polls are held against the same type of unrealistic backdrop.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

There's no short of evidence of the constant barrage of lies and misinformation across the British media, but this was an interesting article I came across today about the sort of misinformation being spread at a local level in each constituency:

https://thebristolcable.org/2019/11/general-election-2019-online-falsehoods-social-media-dark-money-influencing-voters-in-filton-and-bradley-stoke/

Sure you didn't come across it here. Where I posted it this morning?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reality is that no significant change has taken place.

The UK is still split, as it was in 2016, and we now have a clear choice on the table - with the majority now opting for the Johnson Deal or, in second place, a second referendum. Nobody is supporting revocation, which speaks volumes.

In any event, we are where we are.

Similarly, if there was a General Election result in a year's time which puts Boris down from 42 points to 37 points, that wouldn't be a cogent argument in favour of a second General Election, would it!? No, it wouldn't.

Those polls are held against the same type of unrealistic backdrop.

Which poll are you referring to now? The one you already quoted above has support for johnsons deal at 15%.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reality is that no significant change has taken place.

The UK is still split, as it was in 2016, and we now have a clear choice on the table - with the majority now opting for the Johnson Deal or, in second place, a second referendum. Nobody is supporting revocation, which speaks volumes.

In any event, we are where we are.

Similarly, if there was a General Election result in a year's time which puts Boris down from 42 points to 37 points, that wouldn't be a cogent argument in favour of a second General Election, would it!? No, it wouldn't.

Those polls are held against the same type of unrealistic backdrop.

Not seen anything posted previously that even slightly suggests that any individual version of Brexit on its own is more popular than remain. Where are you getting this idea from?

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Not seen anything posted previously that even slightly suggests that any individual version of Brexit on its own is more popular than remain. Where are you getting this idea from?

The polls are consistent along one path - namely, a respect to deliver the 2016 referendum result in one form or another.

This election is that final determination.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The polls are consistent along one path - namely, a respect to deliver the 2016 referendum result in one form or another.

This election is that final determination.

So "one form or another" and not a majority for Johnsons deal then.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The polls are consistent along one path - namely, a respect to deliver the 2016 referendum result in one form or another.

This election is that final determination.

Where's the poll you're referencing that says there's a majority support for johnsons deal? Also, how could anyone opt for revoke when it wasnt among the list of options put forward?

L1011

Farage is blathering but also being let away with it a bit more than I'd expected on Neil

Even though I support Johnson, I think it's lamentable that he did not agree to a Neil grilling.

It always backfires; backfired for May during the debates, and now it appears to be doing the same for Johnson.

Nobody wants a coward as a leader. Further, if Johnson does not have the strongest faith to defend his policies, why should the rest of us?

I still hope he decides to turn up in the coming week. Neil was right to conclude the Farage interview in the way that he did.

Rjd2

The story of that interview isn't actually Farage but Neil calling out Boris for last few minutes.

Farage got tough questions, but has thick skin so did as well as you'd expect.

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

Even though I support Johnson, I think it's lamentable that he did not agree to a Neil grilling.

It always backfires; backfired for May during the debates, and now it appears to be doing the same for Johnson.

Nobody wants a coward as a leader.

I still hope he decides to turn up in the coming week. Neil was right to conclude the Farage interview in the way that he did.

He knew he was going to get killed, but if he had done it a few weeks ago it might have at least been forgotten about next Thursday.

Now though 7 days before it, I think for his sake he has to swerve it. Their be to much viral moments of it for Boris getting hammered for him to survive in the next few days.

Joe_ Public

Watched johnson earlier faffing about among a group of john smedley workers, repeating his usual waffle about hospitals and nurses and regaling his audience with inane jokes about selling pop music to america and other rubbish. Even started vigorously ruffling his already ruffled hair at one point. That guy will not do an interview with andrew neil. Not next week, not next year, not ever. If I'm wrong on that, i will gladly chomp down my russki hat with the oversized ear flaps.

Strazdas

Rjd2 wrote: »

The story of that interview isn't actually Farage but Neil calling out Boris for last few minutes.

Farage got tough questions, but has thick skin so did as well as you'd expect.

Here's the video.....well done Andrew

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50679252

Harry Palmr

I imagine Neil and his production team knew Johnson was not going to aceede to an interview at this stage so just decided to empty chair him.

prawnsambo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I imagine Neil and his production team knew Johnson was not going to aceede to an interview at this stage so just decided to empty chair him.

Wasn't much use imo.The vital part of the interview is the interviewee's responses. Or lack thereof. "I would have asked him..." really doesn't cut it tbh.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Here's the video.....well done Andrew

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50679252

When they hear those list of questions, there's definitely no way he'll go within a mile of the bbc studio. Have a feeling cummings or whichever of his proxies is in charge will be working up a half plausible excuse to justify weaseling out of it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Even though I support Johnson, I think it's lamentable that he did not agree to a Neil grilling.

It always backfires; backfired for May during the debates, and now it appears to be doing the same for Johnson.

Nobody wants a coward as a leader. Further, if Johnson does not have the strongest faith to defend his policies, why should the rest of us?

I still hope he decides to turn up in the coming week. Neil was right to conclude the Farage interview in the way that he did.

It sums up his cowardice and untrustworthiness

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

Wasn't much use imo.The vital part of the interview is the interviewee's responses. Or lack thereof. "I would have asked him..." really doesn't cut it tbh.

I'm not so sure. Those questions about Johnson's trustworthiness were loaded and like missiles.....and he's not there to rebuff questions suggesting he is basically a fraud and slippery like an eel.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The polls are consistent along one path - ]namely, a respect to deliver the 2016 referendum result in one form or another.

This election is that final determination.

You have seen conclusive proof that this statement is a canard.

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm not so sure. Those questions about Johnson's trustworthiness were loaded and like missiles.....and he's not there to rebuff questions suggesting he is basically a fraud and slippery like an eel.

Until he has to answer them. they're just questions. And running through them like that diminishes their impact. There has to be time to digest the question, watch the interviewee flounder etc. that delivers the real impact.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

When they hear those list of questions, there's definitely no way he'll go within a mile of the bbc studio. Have a feeling cummings or whichever of his proxies is in charge will be working up a half plausible excuse to justify weaseling out of it.

If I were Johnson I'd avoid all interviews. Just photo ops, tweets and short videos from now until polling day. Get the Tory press to keep pointing at Corbyn and shouting about antisemitism and Marx. To date, Corbyn is winning the election for the Tories.

LuckyLloyd

It’s a completely damning indictment on UK society that they are about to elect a lying coward as PM, by a landslide no less. Neil’s words tough but appropriate.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If I were Johnson I'd avoid all interviews. Just photo ops, tweets and short videos from now until polling day. Get the Tory press to keep pointing at Corbyn and shouting about antisemitism and Marx. To date, Corbyn is winning the election for the Tories.

I would imagine thats the plan, but still think they will be under pressure to come up with at least a half decent excuse not to do neil. Might just plow on and ignore it but frit narrative will follow them up to polling day. Will it do much damage? Hard to know really.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I would imagine thats the plan, but still think they will be under pressure to come up with at least a half decent excuse not to do neil. Might just plow on and ignore it but frit narrative will follow them up to polling day. Will it do much damage? Hard to know really.

Would be great if it did damage him. Hard to see though, the Brexit vote has galvanised behind the Tories and Johnson and they don't care much about his character. It's become a core base á la Trump.

Joe_ Public

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would be great if it did damage him. Hard to see though, the Brexit vote has galvanised behind the Tories and Johnson and they don't care much about his character. It's become a core base á la Trump.

Yeah have to agree sadly. I suppose the equation comes down to which is more potentially damaging - running away and being called yellow or turning up and being eaten alive without salt by neil. Not a hard one to call, is it?

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah have to agree sadly. I suppose the equation comes down to which is more potentially damaging - running away and being called yellow or turning up and being eaten alive without salt by neil. Not a hard one to call, is it?

And he will know Labour will be praying he does the debate.

Swerving it probably won't make or break him, but doing it and been useless could move the needle enough to make an impact especially so close to the election.