UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Paul the Wolf]

They're not stopping the UK signing the WA treaty, that is true.

No way could that be construed as "leaving" though, outside of the Tory press office .

Actually "leaving" requires the negotiation of an FTA.

Which as far as I can see, the EU has no incentive to offer anything reasonable once said WA treaty is signed. They know the UK won't walk away. So no reason to compromise anything, 4 freedoms or anything else.

My best guess is the FTA negotiations will drag on for a couple of years, then the UK rejoins and it'll be like the GE never happened...

Actually I think that is probably the plan on both sides.

What we're witnessing is just a charade to make it look like the referendum has been honoured...

Leaving does not require the negotiation of a FTA though. As it is the UK will be officially leaving the EU on 31st January 2020 and will become a third country on 1st February and after this date would have to reapply to join the EU and has an 11 month transition period maintaining the same standards and laws while they theoretically adjust to their new life outside the EU which they'll have to do to obtain a FTA with the EU which I believe will take several years at least. It may mean that the UK ask to extend the transition period for a few years.

 

[Kaos]

Labour should claim that their 2 billion trees pledge includes retaining an existing billion trees.

 

[Maticmaker]

Then why are they for a Brexit deal which by the government's own expectations shrink the economy by 5-6% a year.

I think its because that right or wrong, its a price Brexiteers believe is worth paying to get off the train that is heading for the destination of a United States of Europe

 

[sun_tzu]

Leaving does not require the negotiation of a FTA though. As it is the UK will be officially leaving the EU on 31st January 2020 and will become a third country on 1st February and after this date would have to reapply to join the EU and has an 11 month transition period maintaining the same standards and laws while they theoretically adjust to their new life outside the EU which they'll have to do to obtain a FTA with the EU which I believe will take several years at least. It may mean that the UK ask to extend the transition period for a few years.

I thought written into the deal was that it could only be extended once (and I think for a period if 2 years) but that extension had to be requested some point in the summer (june?) 2020
I think the knife edge of no deal etc is here to stay for at least the next year or so

 

[Kaos]

I think its because that right or wrong, its a price Brexiteers believe is worth paying to get off the train that is heading for the destination of a United States of Europe

So instead they head towards assimilating with the actual United States?

 

[sun_tzu]

So instead they head towards assimilating with the actual United States?

if we become the 51st state do we get thanksgiving off?

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Labour should claim that their 2 billion trees pledge includes retaining an existing billion trees.

So instead they head towards assimilating with the actual United States?

 

[FlawlessThaw]

I think its because that right or wrong, its a price Brexiteers believe is worth paying to get off the train that is heading for the destination of a United States of Europe

Which is fair enough but then the decision is made beyond the UK's best interest.

 

[Maticmaker]

So instead they head towards assimilating with the actual United States?

Yes that may well be true, deep down there is affinity with the majority of people in the UK, with the USA (so called special relationship)... but after Trump's period of office, that may change!

 

[africanspur]

I get that. But it would still be political suicide - no ifs no buts or coconuts. It you think Boris proroguing parliament caused an uproar that's nothing to what would happen if he started to truly sell off bits. It's also worth bearing in mind, among all this anti-American talk, that the US manufactures some of the best pharmaceuticals in the world. You can argue on price but the other side is that you would not want to deny a patient the opportunity of getting the best medication available just because you think it's selling the NHS down the river. American manufactured medication is already widely used here.

I think what makes me saddest about this debate is people still talk about it in abstract terms. *If* we started selling off bits.

There is no if, it has started and has been going on for years now. From colleagues, I know the following services have been privatised in various hospitals across the country:

The catering, the cleaning, the labaratory service (ie the service that processes all of the blood tests), the ambulance service, the transport for elderly patient service, clinical addiction services, some orthopaedic services, some general surgery services, physiotherapy, parking, security, out of hours radiology reporting, diabetes retinal screening services, urgent care services in Emergency departments, community paediatrics, speech therapy, sexual health services, community dermatology, occupational therapy.

Some of them see an improvement in services. What I have seen personally and what almost all of my friends and colleagues have also said is that almost uniformally, the quality of services tends to go down significantly when they're tendered out. Because these firms are concerned about making a profit, not providing a good service. And what sometimes happens is that the NHS then has to step back in and spend more to clean up their shit.

I'm not even necessarily against insurance based healthcare like most of the world has. But it is just false to say we haven't started privatising already or that . We've also removed or made certain procedures much more difficult to get (https://www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/new...st-of-conditions-no-longer-available#gdpr-out) allowing companies like this to swoop in and clean up I'm sure...

I don't think there is any doubt that the Americans produce some of the best medications in the world and that a lot of the innovation when it comes to pharmaceuticals comes from them. We currently get access to those based on the NHS's ability to pay, it isn't like we're barred by anyone from trying to buy those meds if necessary.

 

[RedSky]

This is my simple view but I am not saying it is right, just opinion:

The party that wins is usually the party that compromises and wins the middle ground and rightly so (both parties have their extremists)

In recent times that has been Blair/Cameron different parties but both believe in a mixed economy where market forces are allowed to manage demand and supply with a certain/varying amount of government intervention where needed/to make things fair and protect the vulnerable.

The conservatives are usually better at managing money which protects UK credit rating, pensions, savings and inflation which can be good for private investment but impact of this can be a lack of government investment whereas labour tend to overspend which can be good for public services, investment if spent correctly but in longer term can damage the economy and lead to inflation that damages savings and pensions etc.

In recent times the cycle of Labour overspend (but needed investment in public services) followed by Conservative cutting the purse strings (but suffering public services seems to balance things out (you have maxed out the credit card time to pay it off before it becomes un-manageable).

However, this election is different because of the obvious Brexit issue but also Labour have swung worryingly far to the left. My worry is that a JC government will borrow so much money that in the short term it may seem like the good times have arrived but in the longer term it will damage the UK credit rating, lead to inability to raise funds without printing money and raising general taxes, which will lead to inflation which will devalue savings and pensions and ironically will damage ultimately damage the public services that JC wants to throw money at to improve.

The Corbyn ideology of Nationalising everything combined with increasing national debt significantly, risks sending us back to the 1970s when the UK was the poor economy of Europe (a modern day Greece). The government won't be able to borrow money to pay for things like the NHS and so will have to increase taxes. Add to this the fact that large industries will have been nationalised and running at a loss and so the only way to pay for it will be increase in general tax for all (the top 5% won't pay more taxes they never do - they find a way around it or just move their business elsewhere).

I do sympathise with idea that certain industries can be run by the public sector but I fear Corbyn, fuelled by ideology rather than practicality, will rush to re-nationalise everything as soon as possible and they will run at huge losses. In the 1970s, the losses of nationalised industries were paid for by the tax payer - the basic rate of income tax was 33%.

I wouldn't like to see a far right or far left government and so for me voting is deciding which one will be the least bad. I fear that a Corbyn labour is more extreme left than a Boris conservative would be right.

So I am not that excited about either party to be honest but I believe you should always use your vote to decide the least bad if you can not think of it as the best choice. Of course I could vote for a smaller party if I can find a good candidate that will be beneficial to my local area and not want to go in coalition with Corbyn.

Boils down to which you would prefer ultimately and whether you believe the current stories about the NHS. I think that's been happening for a few years so comes as no real surprise to me. But I understand others might be more skeptical.

Tories would lead to:
1 - Brexit occurring and those that supported it profiteering.
2 - Selling the NHS, I think thats undeniable at this stage.
3 - A continued steady decline of public services.
4 - Possible Union split with Scotland fecking off after Brexit confirmation.

Labour would lead to:
1 - Overspending but would improve public services.
2 - Another Brexit referundum.
3 - NHS remaining under public rule.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

I think what makes me saddest about this debate is people still talk about it in abstract terms. *If* we started selling off bits.

There is no if, it has started and has been going on for years now. From colleagues, I know the following services have been privatised in various hospitals across the country:

The catering, the cleaning, the labaratory service (ie the service that processes all of the blood tests), the ambulance service, the transport for elderly patient service, clinical addiction services, some orthopaedic services, some general surgery services, physiotherapy, parking, security, out of hours radiology reporting, diabetes retinal screening services, urgent care services in Emergency departments, community paediatrics, speech therapy, sexual health services, community dermatology, occupational therapy.

Some of them see an improvement in services. What I have seen personally and what almost all of my friends and colleagues have also said is that almost uniformally, the quality of services tends to go down significantly when they're tendered out. Because these firms are concerned about making a profit, not providing a good service. And what sometimes happens is that the NHS then has to step back in and spend more to clean up their shit.

I'm not even necessarily against insurance based healthcare like most of the world has. But it is just false to say we haven't started privatising already or that . We've also removed or made certain procedures much more difficult to get (https://www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/new...st-of-conditions-no-longer-available#gdpr-out) allowing companies like this to swoop in and clean up I'm sure...

I don't think there is any doubt that the Americans produce some of the best medications in the world and that a lot of the innovation when it comes to pharmaceuticals comes from them. We currently get access to those based on the NHS's ability to pay, it isn't like we're barred by anyone from trying to buy those meds if necessary.

Spot on. I said this earlier but it won't be a 'wake up tomorrow morning and it's gone' moment. It's systemically being sold off piece by piece.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Fails the smell test, but I have no idea. If his Ethiopia example took 23 million people then it would seem to be unrealistic. I was once part of a world record attempt for largest synchronised Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes performance. That was a bit of fun and lots of people turned up, but you wouldn't probably wouldn't get any of that group to do it consistently for 10 years.

Anyone going for a World Record Heads shoulders knees and toes attempt probably is stupid enough to do it weekly to be honest.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

Boils down to which you would prefer ultimately and whether you believe the current stories about the NHS. I think that's been happening for a few years so comes as no real surprise to me. But I understand others might be more skeptical.

Tories would lead to:
1 - Brexit occurring and those that supported it profiteering.
2 - Selling the NHS, I think thats undeniable at this stage.
3 - A continued steady decline of public services.
4 - Possible Union split with Scotland fecking off after Brexit confirmation.

Labour would lead to:
1 - Overspending but would improve public services.
2 - Another Brexit referundum.
3 - NHS remaining under public rule.

Maybe a crash too after years of prosperity, its possible if they will run years and years of deficit however that is acceptable when the alternative is Brexit, crash now and continued austerity and deterioration of public services.

 

[Cheesy]

I think the other thing that could haunt Labour is that they didn't support May's deal. We're likely now looking at a the annihilation of Labour and a much harder Brexit. If they'd passed May's deal the US trade deal would have been impossible in the shape of their worst fears. Labour would have also been able to focus fully on a domestic agenda for an election in 2022.

Quite possibly. While the deal may not have gone down well among some Labour supporters, there's a strong chance it'd have divided the Tories, encouraging hardline anti-Deal types to join up with Farage or support him more openly. Although all in hindsight: the consequences could've been worse than we're imagining for Labour depending on how the political atmosphere would've changed afterwards. And I'm not sure Corbyn would've been able to necessarily swing public opinion in his own favour even for an election in 2022. The one constant throughout his spell as Labour leader has been - barring a brief reprieve in 2017 - his fairly strong levels of unpopularity among the wider population.

 

[africanspur]

I do not see how the UK will be successful outside the EU and no other country in the EU is even contemplating leaving, even the populist movements in various European countries now realise that would be economic suicide.
At the end of the day the UK and EU will have a FTA but it will never make up for being in the EU and the Uk have still got to negotiate with the rest of the world to get other FTA's which will be a lot harder than negotiating with the EU.

I think this is one of the things that probably bothers a lot of people who are on the leave spectrum. And I say this as someone who was and remains an ardent remainer.

To say that the UK cannot be successful outside of the EU is just a ridiculous statement, with all due respect. There are currently 27 countries in the EU, one of which (in fact, one of its most successful members) is the UK. There are roughly 168 countries in the world, many of whom are successful without being in the EU.

I would much rather be in the EU and remain in the EU. I personally wouldn't even care if we did end up becoming a USE. But I don't think that the UK will become unsuccessful long term, whether inside or outside of the EU, though I do think there will be short to medium term issues. It still has the 5th largest economy in the world, larger than France's and about 3% of the world total GDP.

I imagine some of them get slightly peeved at the suggestion that they will become 'unsuccessful' outside the EU.

 

[africanspur]

Neither of you have read my post in the context of the post I was responding to.

Yes I have.

You're saying that it seems strange that he would vote labour (having said that he wouldn't vote for the party that put him in the position he's in) because you think the crash was labour's fault and then your tone seems to suggest some degree of bitterness that the JSA was only 6 months for someone who had contributed so much from PAYE previously.

If I've gotten it completely wrong, could you please explain how?

 

[Ady87]

Not sure there will be a priority waiting room. My guess is that American firms will build private hospitals here and those that can will increasingly take out insurance whilst those that can't have to put up with the remains of the NHS.

I knew I liked him.

Do you know what? feck it. We're too far down the road now and I'm too weary to have this argument again.

On the language point however: I work all around Europe and can speak few foreign languages well. This is not an issue as the international language of business is English.

I don't care about immigration really and I can't be bothered debating the point anymore as the mindset that does is so alien to me that I've just given up.

In what sense we're not sovereign I have no idea and the abstract nature of this ideal is almost meaningless to me. I have yet to encounter any leaver able to cite a law that the EU had "imposed" we'll be free from or any examples that aren't either bollocks (Boris and the bicycles for instance) or a good (Theresa May vs The Human Rights Act). I do have concerns about large federalist unions and the dilution of democracy it brings but given the utter voter apathy we saw in EU elections and the absolute shit show that the post fact and slogan driven politics of Britain have been reduced to since Brexit I'm not sure what there is to protect.

I have much less concern about the EU than I do this media controlling, alternately ideologically driven or self serving Conservative party which the south of England will vote in again and again and again no matter what they do.


So @Fiskey, good luck and I hope it all works out splendidly and that you're right against all the evidence.

I'm going to go back to watching @sun_tzu 's zen inducing robotic production of the same phrase patterns generally including the words "Anti-semite", "EHRC" and fecking "Unicorns". Sorry for wasting your time.

This sums up my thoughts.

Labour should claim that their 2 billion trees pledge includes retaining an existing billion trees.

This made me laugh very loudly whilst on a conference call

 

[2mufc0]

 

[nickm]

People like that guy in the QT audience are so extremely frustrating. Misinformed and lying arseholes. Don't understand how you can be annoyed at earning over £80k a year and being asked to pay slightly more in tax to fund a better society. Baffles the brain. (admittedly, it doesn't take much).

Because being paid 80k/year doesn't make you rich. Owning an asset which gives you an 80k year/income - that's what makes you rich.

 

[Cheesy]

Because being paid 80k/year doesn't make you rich. Owning an asset which gives you an 80k year/income - that's what makes you rich.

If you're being paid £80k a year then you are very well-off provided you don't squander it all instantly.

 

[nickm]

If you're being paid £80k a year then you are very well-off provided you don't squander it all instantly.

Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of households earn a combined 80k - are they well off?

 

[africanspur]

Because being paid 80k/year doesn't make you rich. Owning an asset which gives you an 80k year/income - that's what makes you rich.

Yes it does. It makes you significantly richer than most of the population, puts you in the top 5% of earners and leading a much more comfortable life than most Brits lead.

The fact that he genuinely thinks he isn't in the top 50% of earners shows what an utter tool he is.

Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of households earn a combined 80k - are they well off?

Yes they are. Well off both in terms of the UK and also worldwide, considering the median household disposable income in the UK is £29400.

If his gross pay was £80,000, he'd be taking home over £50k most likely.

 

[villain]

Because being paid 80k/year doesn't make you rich. Owning an asset which gives you an 80k year/income - that's what makes you rich.

Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of households earn a combined 80k - are they well off?

These are 2 different scenarios.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

The human race is on course to land boots on Mars in the near future.

Doubting a countries ability to plant trees is fcuking moronic.

Everyone just shut up about it already. If it’s ‘only’ 1bn trees in 30 years, guess what?.... we all win. Together. The country is a slightly better place. So Who the Fcuk cares. Of all the issues right now..... I give up.

 

[Honest John]

I think what makes me saddest about this debate is people still talk about it in abstract terms. *If* we started selling off bits.

There is no if, it has started and has been going on for years now. From colleagues, I know the following services have been privatised in various hospitals across the country:

The catering, the cleaning, the labaratory service (ie the service that processes all of the blood tests), the ambulance service, the transport for elderly patient service, clinical addiction services, some orthopaedic services, some general surgery services, physiotherapy, parking, security, out of hours radiology reporting, diabetes retinal screening services, urgent care services in Emergency departments, community paediatrics, speech therapy, sexual health services, community dermatology, occupational therapy.

Some of them see an improvement in services. What I have seen personally and what almost all of my friends and colleagues have also said is that almost uniformally, the quality of services tends to go down significantly when they're tendered out. Because these firms are concerned about making a profit, not providing a good service. And what sometimes happens is that the NHS then has to step back in and spend more to clean up their shit.

I'm not even necessarily against insurance based healthcare like most of the world has. But it is just false to say we haven't started privatising already or that . We've also removed or made certain procedures much more difficult to get (https://www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/new...st-of-conditions-no-longer-available#gdpr-out) allowing companies like this to swoop in and clean up I'm sure...

I don't think there is any doubt that the Americans produce some of the best medications in the world and that a lot of the innovation when it comes to pharmaceuticals comes from them. We currently get access to those based on the NHS's ability to pay, it isn't like we're barred by anyone from trying to buy those meds if necessary.

Between 7 and 25% is run by private firms. Mostly in an attempt by both Labour and the Tories over the years to save money. It is still free at the point of delivery. But it is also a massive money-sink and it will be for whoever wins this election. After 70 years it should be properly reviewed and reformed. As I said before, something like a Royal Commission should by assigned taking account of all possible options. Nothing should be taken off the table. It is after all a medical service for the people of the UK - not, as most people consider it, a sacred cow that you can't touch. It could well be that the funding model that has been in effect for 70 year turns out to be the best one and all that is required is proper restructuring. The only way something like that can happen - for the good of everyone, is that parties stop politicising it and start talking to one another about it.

 

[africanspur]

Between 7 and 25% is run by private firms. Mostly in an attempt by both Labour and the Tories over the years to save money. It is still free at the point of delivery. But it is also a massive money-sink and it will be for whoever wins this election. After 70 years it should be properly review and reformed. As I said before, something like a Royal Commission should by assigned taking account of all possible options. Nothing should be taken off the table. It is after all a medical service for the people of the UK - not, as most people consider it, a sacred cow that you can't touch. It could well be that the funding model that has been in effect for 70 year turns out to be the best one and all that is required is proper restructuring. The only way something like that can happen - for the good of everyone, is that parties stop politicising it and start talking to one another about it.

In which case, why make the initial comment you made then? You've just said that up to a quarter is run by private firms....following a comment in which you mention that people would go crazy if they started to privatise the NHS.

Its already happening and people aren't even realising. They're already having operations cancelled or being told they're no longer available on the NHS and having to go private if they can afford it. And we can blame it on lazy doctors or immigrants or whatever we want to but its happening already.

I agree that reform ideas should not be taken off the table.

 

[P-Nut]

Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of households earn a combined 80k - are they well off?

My household earns just over 80k a year and I'd say I'm well off now. (didn't start that way)

I don't worry about paying the bills and have money left over to enjoy myself. In todays society that is well off.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

It's a sacrifice to the Lib Dems that had to be made. Labour were never getting a majority so It's better for voters to go Lib Dem than Tory. Going leave would have meant Lib dems maintained course on a 2nd referendum in all likelihood.

I've not given up hope on a hung parliament but with the Lib dems doing so poorly on the revoke platform i worry they won't get the southern seats needed.

Lib Dems ruled out working with Labour very early on. Jo Swinson is more Tory than anything else.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Interesting thread

Plays into the Tory hand. Discredit all parties and the status quo will remain. It's a particular tactic to demotivate potential new young voters.

 

[sun_tzu]

Lib Dems ruled out working with Labour very early on.

to be fair they have ruled out working with cotbyn... get rid of him and they would work with them
as they would have done in a GNU under clarke or harman or beckett

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Indeed. I think Labour need to ask themselves why they've lost a huge chunk of the working class vote to the Tories. I'm in a marginal Labour swing seat that they won by about 800 votes (back from the Tories) in 2017. I would be very surprised if it doesn't swing back the other way this time and in all honesty the Tories have really had to do nothing to win it back. The guy they've parachuted in doesn't even live here. In the 5/6 years I've been here I've seen homelessness increase tenfold, shops close down on a weekly basis and the local councils cut to the bear bones. So you'd think why aren't they blaming the Tories? Well they aren't because of the other significant issue that is the elephant in the room, immigration. It's massive, complex but incredibly difficult to have an adult conversation about without mud slinging and accusations of racism.

To be blunt there's an issue with a section of the Romanian community in this town and I say this as a Labour lefty who grew up in one of the most multicultural diverse cities in the UK and think it's all the better for it. Last week there was huge gang fight in this community that led to a major road being shut down for most of the day, multiple arrests and stop and search throughout the weekend. People will always claim it's hyperbole and although I've never felt unsafe personally there is no way I would let my step daughter go through certain parts of town on her own. I've walked behind young girls and heard groups of lads shout "pussy, pussy. hey sexy" etc... as girls walk by and that's just the verbal stuff. It's intimidating and worrying.

Personally though I can separate that, leave the (criminally underfunded) police to deal with it and look at the bigger picture. Many can't. It's easy and simplistic to say "we want these scumbags off the streets" and then everything will be rosy again but that's how this campaign and Brexit has been won. I guess what I'm trying to say is yes, there are a chunk of racist, xenophobic working class voters that Labour have lost but that doesn't mean some of the concerns they have aren't legitimate and when one of their flagstone policies is to expand immigration, well, they're not going to win those voters back.

Fair point. Irony is that we need immigration due to the ageing population. But the ageing population don't like immigrants!

 

[Cheesy]

Maybe. Maybe not. Lots of households earn a combined 80k - are they well off?

They are, yes. Not necessarily rich, as such - but certainly fairly well-off.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Labour have been saying the Tories have been selling the NHS since I started watching Question Time in the 70's with Robin Day presenting. That is over 40 years ago, so if the 'piecemeal' argument was true it ought to be well gone by now. It hasn't happened and it won't. It is a sacred cow that no party dares mess with, lest they want to be wiped out.

At the moment private companies provide between 7% and 25% of services, depending on what way you want to slant the stats. Both Labour and Conservatives have presided over this and some of the Companies are American owned. However, the basic model is still the same.

What is needed is for it to cease being a political football and for a cross-party review or a Royal Commission to be conducted to establish whether the current funding model and the way it is run is fit for purpose in 21st century Britain. It should be impartial, honest and take account of other models worldwide.

It is a bottomless pit for money as parties of both colours have found out. So simply throwing billions and billions at it will not on it's own solve the issues.

We all use it and we all want it to work properly. We all pay for it so we want value for money too.

There are no sides in this argument as I see it.

You said it yourself. Up to 25% is now delivered by private companies. Was that the case in the 70s?

The only reason it hasn't happened 100% under the Tories yet, and they are doing it by stealth, is exactly because of public opinion. Jeremy Hunt (ex Tory health secretary) even wrote a book about it!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...et-replacement-direct-democracy-a6865306.html

 

[Mr Pigeon]

My household earns just over 80k a year and I'd say I'm well off now. (didn't start that way)

I don't worry about paying the bills and have money left over to enjoy myself. In todays society that is well off.

And this is the biggest problem. Having any money for luxuries at the end of the month automatically puts your in the wealthy column because everyone has been fecked over by rising costs and stagnated wages.

On another note; who wants to buy one of my livers? I've heard you only need one to survive...

 

[Damien]

Spoiler: MRP for my constituency

Was a heavy Leave vote. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Brexit Party vote higher and definitely expect Labour vote to be lower. Filled out my postal vote yesterday and only one of the candidates (Labour) lives in the constituency.

Today I got a Brexit Party leaflet addressed to me in the post.

Spoiler: leaflet

Got something from Labour yesterday. Nothing from Conservatives, Lib Dems or Greens yet.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Quite possibly. While the deal may not have gone down well among some Labour supporters, there's a strong chance it'd have divided the Tories, encouraging hardline anti-Deal types to join up with Farage or support him more openly. Although all in hindsight: the consequences could've been worse than we're imagining for Labour depending on how the political atmosphere would've changed afterwards. And I'm not sure Corbyn would've been able to necessarily swing public opinion in his own favour even for an election in 2022. The one constant throughout his spell as Labour leader has been - barring a brief reprieve in 2017 - his fairly strong levels of unpopularity among the wider population.

Thing is though that Farage and the ERG have essentially commandeered the Tory party anyway. This is what we’re looking at right now. It’s looking close to worst case as it is.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Can we quit quoting Guido, it demeans you.

Guido is his middle name.

 

[Smores]

Really? Ok, your opinion, I don't think so.

Contrary to popular belief, what the US wants, the US doesn't always get. All the documents say is the US would like future talks to possibly include (nothing more) talks regarding potential involvement with the NHS. Same as for example, Phoenix (huge German corp) does and will do.

BJ/conservative MPs have stated repeatedly that the NHS is not "for sale" but never denied that ongoing discussions could be held with US... same as they can be with other countries suppliers (competition is good) and it's only one part of any future trade deal discussion.

Yes, I know BJ has lied before (he's not the only UK leader or MP to do so) and I don't trust everything he says verbatim. But again, it'd be political suicide to take away the core principle of the NHS... any party who does that would get annihilated at the next GE and a new Govt could change the process (either short term or once existing arrangement came to a natural end).

Anyone who thinks that any Government would concede doubling drug prices to US suppliers, perhaps in exchange for something else - a huge car order from the UK perhaps - is deluded. As annoying as ALL politicians are, they understand the difference between the UK car industry (if there is one) and the NHS.

(Never read the Mail... or hardly any paper actually. Rather listen to politicians, make my own decisions).

So you believe we'll walk away from a US trade deal? And what's your assessment on how much that would cost?

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Spoiler: MRP for my constituency

Was a heavy Leave vote. Wouldn't be surprised to see the Brexit Party vote higher and definitely expect Labour vote to be lower. Filled out my postal vote yesterday and only one of the candidates (Labour) lives in the constituency.

Today I got a Brexit Party leaflet addressed to me in the post.

Spoiler: leaflet

Got something from Labour yesterday. Nothing from Conservatives, Lib Dems or Greens yet.

Had BP, Labour & Tory all through the post today as well as a leaflet on tactical voting from the peoples vote lot telling me to vote Labour if I want a chance to stay in the EU.

Nice Doggo.