Current Affairs The General Election

[tsubaki]

General election 2019: Jeremy Corbyn vows to 'transform' UK

The Labour leader vows to take on the "elite" in "radical" election pitch, but the PM blames him for delaying Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Corbyn says in this speech that Tory trade deals with the US would see £500 million extra given to US pharmaceutical companies every week, yet the entire NHS only spends just over £300 million on drugs per week.

And that's aside from this continued suggestion that paying more for drugs that already come from pharmaceutical companies is somehow selling the NHS off.

I’d imagine that is some sort of prelude to an argument that as part of the deal we’d be tied in to their system of drug approvals / patents, and that we would therefore spend more than we do now because the government would be forced to keep providing the drugs people need.

As an argument it has some merit; after all the ruthless privatised US healthcare system does get more per capita funding off the US government than the socialist NHS does off the UK government.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I’d imagine that is some sort of prelude to an argument that as part of the deal we’d be tied in to their system of drug approvals / patents, and that we would therefore spend more than we do now because the government would be forced to keep providing the drugs people need.

As an argument it has some merit; after all the ruthless privatised US healthcare system does get more per capita funding off the US government than the socialist NHS does off the UK government.

Sure, the US healthcare system is completely dysfunctional, I'm just not sure where he gets the insights to make such bold statements.

 

[Number_25]

Sure, the US healthcare system is completely dysfunctional, I'm just not sure where he gets the insights to make such bold statements.

I'm all for us bringing DD back into public ownership.

 

[magicjuan]

General election 2019: Jeremy Corbyn vows to 'transform' UK

The Labour leader vows to take on the "elite" in "radical" election pitch, but the PM blames him for delaying Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Corbyn says in this speech that Tory trade deals with the US would see £500 million extra given to US pharmaceutical companies every week, yet the entire NHS only spends just over £300 million on drugs per week.

And that's aside from this continued suggestion that paying more for drugs that already come from pharmaceutical companies is somehow selling the NHS off.

Isn't the point being to get better deals?
Aside from creating 'new markets' in the US.
You really are reaching and stretching for anything, anything at all, to beat Corbyn with.
It's like you work for der Mail or das Telegraf.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm all for us bringing DD back into public ownership.

DD?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Isn't the point being to get better deals?
Aside from creating 'new markets' in the US.
You really are reaching and stretching for anything, anything at all, to beat Corbyn with.
It's like you work for der Mail or das Telegraf.

That was his speech to launch his campaign, and the £500 million figure was his central piece of evidence to support his claim that the NHS is being sold off.

 

[catcherintherye]

General election 2019: Jeremy Corbyn vows to 'transform' UK

The Labour leader vows to take on the "elite" in "radical" election pitch, but the PM blames him for delaying Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Corbyn says in this speech that Tory trade deals with the US would see £500 million extra given to US pharmaceutical companies every week, yet the entire NHS only spends just over £300 million on drugs per week.

And that's aside from this continued suggestion that paying more for drugs that already come from pharmaceutical companies is somehow selling the NHS off.

Strictly speaking it is not privatisation, though in what people understand privatisation to the US to be it ticks most of the components.

What it is in reality is gravely weakening the bargaining position of the NHS as a single large entity. This is what the US drug suppliers want,t o have the ability to not have to deal with one large organisation.

There are pro's and cons to this objectively, however it's hard to argue that for most ordinary people in the UK, the US drug companies being able to exert greater leverage over hospitals would be bad for people in the UK.

It is partly an ideological decision by the Conservatives, but also partly to do with cronyism as to why they are potentially pressuring the NHS to go down a path that would be weaker for themselves, but also lead to lower standards for consumers.

As I've said consistently, I'm not wholly against public/private partnerships working but this feels an intrinsically poor example of it. No business would operate in that way, namely if they had a strong negotiating position willingly weaken it. Yet this is what's expected of the public sector, in some sort of Kafkaesque nightmare to supposedly follow the trends of what they do in the private sector. They most certainly do not.

 

[Tubey]

One interview that sums up exactly why Labour are insane and terrify the ordinary person.

They make out like it's a crime to have ambition. Everyone should be the same.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Strictly speaking it is not privatisation, though in what people understand privatisation to the US to be it ticks most of the components.

What it is in reality is gravely weakening the bargaining position of the NHS as a single large entity. This is what the US drug suppliers want,t o have the ability to not have to deal with one large organisation.

There are pro's and cons to this objectively, however it's hard to argue that for most ordinary people in the UK, the US drug companies being able to exert greater leverage over hospitals would be bad for people in the UK.

It is partly an ideological decision by the Conservatives, but also partly to do with cronyism as to why they are potentially pressuring the NHS to go down a path that would be weaker for themselves, but also lead to lower standards for consumers.

As I've said consistently, I'm not wholly against public/private partnerships working but this feels an intrinsically poor example of it. No business would operate in that way, namely if they had a strong negotiating position willingly weaken it. Yet this is what's expected of the public sector, in some sort of Kafkaesque nightmare to supposedly follow the trends of what they do in the private sector. They most certainly do not.

Weakening the power of NICE would almost certainly be bad, but I'm not sure where the evidence is to support Corbyn's claims. All there's been is a few bumblings from the states that in any trade negotiation they would regard the NHS as fair game. From that we seem to have undergone a game of Chinese whispers, with first this meaning that NICE will be neutered, then that this will more than double the cost of drugs for the NHS, and that this in some way equates to the NHS being privatised.

I wouldn't put anything past the Tories, but what is Corbyn's evidence for making these grandiose claims?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

One interview that sums up exactly why Labour are insane and terrify the ordinary person.

They make out like it's a crime to have ambition. Everyone should be the same.

"Whose side are you on?" must be Seamus Milne's election catchphrase and we can look forward to it being shoehorned into any public utterance for the next month. Joy.

 

[catcherintherye]

The manufacturers lobby believe a Corbyn government would be a nightmare - https://www.ft.com/content/b635e6ea-e654-11e7-8b99-0191e45377ec

Morgan Stanley citing a Corbyn government as a bigger risk to the UK economy than Brexit - https://www.theguardian.com/politic...eat-to-british-business-than-brexit-says-bank

Shares in firms in the crosshairs of McDonnells share grab underperforming compared to peers - https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/10/30/how-jeremy-corbyn-would-radically-transform-britain

Tim Harford's take on policies such as the daft landlord/right to buy policy - http://timharford.com/2019/10/beware-of-simple-ideas-that-become-serious-pains/

You would have to concede though, that most of the above organisations/publications either directly or indirectly represent the interests of business and wealthier elements of society. There is little doubt to say, a Corbyn government, in re-balancing society in favour of the majority (including the poorest) could be described as a risk or even a "disaster" by said groups who will likely have their share of wealth cut.

It can hardly come as a surprise, but they are not objective observers measuring progress for the majority of people. They are talking about their own sectional interests which will be damaged.

In an ideal world it's a shame that the wealthier members of society will likely lose a fraction of their wealth. I wish that didn't have to happen. However it's hard to see us solving the chronic problems we have, or even getting part of the way to begin to solve them without doing the above.

To me it's a sacrifice worth making. I do understand that won't be everyones view though.

 

[dwightschrute]

Of course billionaires shouldn't exist ffs, especially when the gap between rich and poor is getting out of control since the 80's. Wealth is being horded by the rich and will get worse as natural resources deplete and climate change makes places unlivable unless we take action now.

Bernie is running on the exact same message and currently 2nd in Dem polls

 

[catcherintherye]

Weakening the power of NICE would almost certainly be bad, but I'm not sure where the evidence is to support Corbyn's claims. All there's been is a few bumblings from the states that in any trade negotiation they would regard the NHS as fair game. From that we seem to have undergone a game of Chinese whispers, with first this meaning that NICE will be neutered, then that this will more than double the cost of drugs for the NHS, and that this in some way equates to the NHS being privatised.

I wouldn't put anything past the Tories, but what is Corbyn's evidence for making these grandiose claims?

I think it's been quite widely stated by the US that they are keen to do exactly that and is one big stumbling block they have. They want to be able to sell drugs in the manner they do to the American providers and the way NICE is protected as a single, strong buyer makes this extremely difficult.

I don't have any evidence that this is on the cards. Maybe Corbyn does. We know meetings are going on and they have lied about said meetings going on.

This goes away for the Tories (and could backfire on Corbyn) if the Tories issued one line, categorically stating it is untrue and they would not seek to break up the bargaining power of NICE. Until they do so, it will gain traction.

 

[Tubey]

Of course billionaires shouldn't exist ffs, especially when the gap between rich and poor is getting out of control since the 80's. Wealth is being horded by the rich and will get worse as natural resources deplete and climate change makes places unlivable unless we take action now.

Bernie is running on the exact same message and currently 2nd in Dem polls

When your economic strategy is rob the rich to feed the poor, what happens when there's no more rich to rob because they've left the country?

It's student union politics again. Ridiculously simplistic.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You would have to concede though, that most of the above organisations/publications either directly or indirectly represent the interests of business and wealthier elements of society. There is little doubt to say, a Corbyn government, in re-balancing society in favour of the majority (including the poorest) could be described as a risk or even a "disaster" by said groups who will likely have their share of wealth cut.

It can hardly come as a surprise, but they are not objective observers measuring progress for the majority of people. They are talking about their own sectional interests which will be damaged.

In an ideal world it's a shame that the wealthier members of society will likely lose a fraction of their wealth. I wish that didn't have to happen. However it's hard to see us solving the chronic problems we have, or even getting part of the way to begin to solve them without doing the above.

To me it's a sacrifice worth making. I do understand that won't be everyones view though.

Morgan Stanley are inevitably going to attract suspicion. I'm not sure Tim Harford has any political allegiances though, and his critique of the landlord/right to buy policy seems pretty logical to me.

Of course billionaires shouldn't exist ffs, especially when the gap between rich and poor is getting out of control since the 80's. Wealth is being horded by the rich and will get worse as natural resources deplete and climate change makes places unlivable unless we take action now.

Bernie is running on the exact same message and currently 2nd in Dem polls

Why is relative wealth more important than absolute wealth?