Current Affairs The General Election

[Jebus_lives]

Again, I’m not sure why you are implying that I’m in favour of any of that. I think it’s you missing the simple facts mate.

Regardless, it’s a really lazy, hackneyed attempt by Labour to generate outrage.

But it's not, they've overstated it sure, but that doesnt detract from what's stated.

And I'd point out that you are starting from the premise that the Tories' have no vested interest in private healthcare, pharmaceuticals or deregulation in a number of areas that these trade talks cover.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Some reports that Cummings has resigned?



edit: it seems they are claiming he left a few weeks ago and therefore isn't covered by purdah rules when he publishes dogwhistle blog posts

I wondered why the 'downing street source' tweets had stopped.

Still doesn't stop Peston & Kuenssberg amplifying his thoughts and veiws though.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But he's lying though. Pharma was the driving force behind the renegotiation of NAFTA. They are by far the most active lobbying sector in overseas US trade negotiations

For example:

How Big Pharma (and others) began lobbying on the Trans-Pacific Partnership before you ever heard of it : Sunlight Foundation

Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants…

sunlightfoundation.com

Lets assume that the American pharma lobby do manage to wrangle much higher prices out of the NHS in any future trade deal. That's bad. Undoubtedly bad. It's in no way whatsoever the NHS being sold off or privatised though, so unless Corbyn has actually divulged the top secret rollocks he has managed to get his hands on (which bizarrely he hasn't - happier with the kind of supposition that means people can make up whatever scare story they want), then people's heads are falling off for very little reason.

I hope you fellas don't encounter a real crisis in life.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Are you really being that daft??

DUe to the way the NHS is run we do not pay the same prices (not even close) to what we would be charged by US pharma corps if the trade deal was done. It would bankrupt the NHS in months and we would all have to be insured.

Such a poor response mate.

About 10% of the NHS budget is spent on drugs.

 

[bol-uk]

About 10% of the NHS budget is spent on drugs.

Yes but at agreed prices. If we allow the proposed deal it would be 20% - 30% who knows but it would be a huge amount more.

And as stated above, many tories have vested interest due business connection in the pharma industry.

So dodgy


Per capita:

 

[zzr45]

But it's not, they've overstated it sure, but that doesnt detract from what's stated.

And I'd point out that you are starting from the premise that the Tories' have no vested interest in private healthcare, pharmaceuticals or deregulation in a number of areas that these trade talks cover.

It really is lazy though, the idea that we were all supposed to be up in arms about this is just really poor politics. The utter indifference from the gathered journalists who pretty much dismissed it as ‘yeah, and?’ summed it up. It was supposed to enrage people to completely forget about yesterday’s non story about anti semitism. The world needs to cut it with the crap non stories because all it does is further dissuade anyone from voting for any of them.

I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t arbitrarily decide what ‘position’ I’m coming from as well. Those talks will be as crooked as anything. Quelle surprise. I wish we weren’t at a position where it mattered because politicians and their posse of apologists actually got their heads out of their arses & actually put the people they are supposed to serve over trite ideological battles or personal advancement.

 

[abelard]

Lets assume that the American pharma lobby do manage to wrangle much higher prices out of the NHS in any future trade deal. That's bad. Undoubtedly bad. It's in no way whatsoever the NHS being sold off or privatised though,

???

I said the same thing would be bad that you've just said would be bad.

I didn't say anything about 'privatisation'.

I hope you fellas don't encounter a real crisis in life.

I wouldn't wish it upon you, but you, on the other hand, would learn quite a lot about how your own country actually works, were you to encounter a real crisis in life.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It really is lazy though, the idea that we were all supposed to be up in arms about this is just really poor politics. The utter indifference from the gathered journalists who pretty much dismissed it as ‘yeah, and?’ summed it up. It was supposed to enrage people to completely forget about yesterday’s non story about anti semitism. The world needs to cut it with the crap non stories because all it does is further dissuade anyone from voting for any of them.

I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t arbitrarily decide what ‘position’ I’m coming from as well. Those talks will be as crooked as anything. Quelle surprise. I wish we weren’t at a position where it mattered because politicians and their posse of apologists actually got their heads out of their arses & actually put the people they are supposed to serve over trite ideological battles or personal advancement.

I took it that you were (and I'm probably being far too generous here) objective on the matter; as such wouldn't be considering the vested interest of Politicians.

I'd also point out, having looked at the footage, journalists weren't dismissive, they were taken by surprise and uncertain - there is a big difference.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Lets assume that the American pharma lobby do manage to wrangle much higher prices out of the NHS in any future trade deal. That's bad. Undoubtedly bad. It's in no way whatsoever the NHS being sold off or privatised though, so unless Corbyn has actually divulged the top secret rollocks he has managed to get his hands on (which bizarrely he hasn't - happier with the kind of supposition that means people can make up whatever scare story they want), then people's heads are falling off for very little reason.

I hope you fellas don't encounter a real crisis in life.

Labour have been ridiculed for proposing an additional 4% increase in government spending until the end of the FT Parliament.

'Where will the money come from?'

If this actually happens, and there is nothing in those talks to suggest it won't - where is the additional money coming from to fund the prices the US will want to charge? It will most definitely take spending on drugs well past the 10% you've stated.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

There is big concern with crony capitalism by allowing investor protection provisions of a future UK-US agreement, US investors would be allowed to claim compensation if they lost access to the NHS market, thus preventing any future government from reducing the levels of private provision within the NHS. Boris has been caught spaving on NHS.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Labour have been ridiculed for proposing an additional 4% increase in government spending until the end of the FT Parliament.

'Where will the money come from?'

If this actually happens, and there is nothing in those talks to suggest it won't - where is the additional money coming from to fund the prices the US will want to charge? It will most definitely take spending on drugs well past the 10% you've stated.

If he'd said, and said all along (as this is far from new), that he opposes the pharma industry having any leverage over NICE then no problems whatsoever. That's perfectly right.

He went all silly however by trying to suggest this is the NHS being sold off. It's nothing of the sort. It's the NHS potentially being fleeced for supplies. No more, no less.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

There is big concern with crony capitalism by allowing investor protection provisions of a future UK-US agreement, US investors would be allowed to claim compensation if they lost access to the NHS market, thus preventing any future government from reducing the levels of private provision within the NHS. Boris has been caught spaving on NHS.

No, they wouldn't. Those regulations prevent a government from breaking the law, which is presumably a good thing.

 

[abelard]

If he'd said, and said all along (as this is far from new), that he opposes the pharma industry having any leverage over NICE then no problems whatsoever. That's perfectly right.

He went all silly however by trying to suggest this is the NHS being sold off. It's nothing of the sort. It's the NHS potentially being fleeced for supplies. No more, no less.

This is tendentious to the point of being disingenuous. 'Sold off' is obviously a vague term, but for ordinary voters, signing an agreement which benefits American pharmaceutical corporations and seriously harms British NHS users is exactly the sort of thing to which it refers.

What Corbyn has revealed today is not quite the bombshell that Labour has implied, but it is not nothing either.

More important, it is a perfectly legitimate disclosure in the context of an election not least because were Labour in charge these discussions would not even be occurring in the first place, and voters should know this before they make a decision.

They have a right to know what the Tories have been up to with the Yanks, and to decide whether or not they trust Boris Johnson to continue representing them and the NHS.

No, they wouldn't. Those regulations prevent a government from breaking the law, which is presumably a good thing.

But what @NilSatisOptimum says: " US investors would be allowed to claim compensation if they lost access to the NHS market" is what the US-UK trade law would include, because the American pharmaceutical lobby will have written it. Governments should not be signing dreadful rent-seeking legislation in the first place, which is exactly what will happen if the Tories win a majority.

Breaking news, Bruce: Brexit is bad! You heard it here first.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I need to get in touch with this person for plagiarising my thoughts.

 

[abelard]

In anticipation...

Why you should take YouGov’s MRP with a pinch of salt

Why you should take YouGov’s MRP with a pinch of salt

YouGov has released its detailed model of what it thinks the 2019 election result will be. A technique called multilevel regression and

www.newstatesman.com

It’s just one poll - and its existence could, in of itself, change the result.


It’s MRP day! Today at 10pm, YouGov will release its detailed model of what it thinks the 2019 election result will be. A technique called multilevel regression and post-stratification (MRP) it allows you to use polls to predict what that means at a constituency level..

At the last election, YouGov’s MRP called the result broadly correct, showing a hung parliament, though it underestimated the Conservatives (showing them on 302 seats, which would seen them lose office, not 318 as they ultimately got), to the benefit of Labour and the SNP (who it projected getting 269 and 44 seats not 262 and 35), while underestimating Plaid Cymru (who got four not two seats). The exit poll – the detailed survey of voters conducted by the broadcasters – also slightly underestimated the Conservatives, but to a lesser extent.

At the last election, the MRP model was treated with perhaps excessive scepticism: it showed us broadly what we’d expect given the direction of travel in the polls. This time, I suspect that it will be given the opposite treatment, and viewed almost as holy writ. We shouldn’t treat an MRP any differently to how we should any other form of poll. YouGov’s MRP may be right – Survation, who using conventional techniques also got the 2017 election right within the margin of error, may be right. IpsosMori, who got the 2019 European elections may be right. Kantar, who got both wrong, may be right. We can’t say with confidence.

Remember that our electoral system means that the results will be decided in marginal constituencies which are just that, marginal. If I can build a model that accurately tells you from the behaviour of less than a 100 people that Diane Abbott will be re-elected with say, 67 per cent of the vote in Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and she actually gets 65 or 71 per cent, that’s still pretty impressive – I’ve managed to predict the behaviour of 70,000 people in a very small geographic area using a yet smaller sub-sample. But underestimating the Labour vote by even one per cent would have changed the result in Southampton Itchen, Richmond Park, Stirling, St Ives, Pudsey, Hastings and Rye, Chipping Barnet, Thurrock, Preseli Pembrokeshire, Calder Valley, Norwich North, Broxtowe, Stoke-On-Trent South, Telford and Bolton West, and with it put Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street. Overestimating it by even one per cent would likewise have changed the result in eight constituencies and given Theresa May a majority.

In addition, the very act of publishing YouGov’s MRP model may change the result. We are reasonably confident that telling Conservative Remainers the result is uncertain changes how they behave – that is the view of both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Several Tories in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat battleground have told me that what they wanted more than anything was for YouGov’s MRP to show a hung parliament – and with their seat tipping the balance. They credit the personalised letters from David Cameron in 2015 warning of a Labour-SNP government with their victories in 2015, and think that the seemingly distant prospect of a Corbyn government in 2017 is what cost their fellow 2015 intake MPs in Bath, Oxford West, Eastbourne, Kingston and Surbiton and Twickenham.

So all in all, while tonight’s MRP might be right, it might not be: and even if it is right, its very existence might change the results.