National News Official 2019 General Election Thread

For anyone looking for forensic analysis of all parties, I heartily recommend the Andrew Neil Show. The longer form interviews in prime time are a sea change from Sunday morning TV. Yesterdays was good watching.

And a point about the NHS drugs things from Labour and US Pharma companies. Turns out it's fake news - the NHS buys drugs from the world, so while of course costs can go up, they are not on the scale of the 500 million being quoted - more like 50 million.
 
And a point about the NHS drugs things from Labour and US Pharma companies. Turns out it's fake news - the NHS buys drugs from the world, so while of course costs can go up, they are not on the scale of the 500 million being quoted - more like 50 million.

The 'Dispatches' program that was the source was clear in it's references and I linked to it before, the 500 million is related to the price of medicines in the US compared to the price NICE gets by shopping around ('buying drugs from the world' - including generics) to treat the same problems. It comes from a Harvard report based on OECD numbers - making the UK price per head the same as the US price per head would cost 500 million pounds per week.

What is clear is that the goal of the US (and the big-pharma lobbyists meeting now with Tory ministers is to "provide full market access for US products” - (Financial Times) which translates to 'prevent the NHS using other sources' - the Dispatches program interviewed (iirc) a US trade delegation leader and a former big-pharma exec to support this.

Do you have a source for 'more like 50 million' and a description of how that number was reached?
 
If my experiences with this poster are correct, his response to this will be:

A. Non existent; or
B. Unrelated to the questions you've asked.

There is of course a third option whereby he simply accuses me of being racist. A very entertaining poster.
Well obviously you are a racist and a fan of that Yaxley Lennon fellow. You don’t like Muslims much either, do you
. I wasn’t going to mention it but since you insist.

Billionaire tax avoiders.

Here’s an article about Britain’s richest man, the Brexit supporter Sir Jim Ratcliffe, and two of his key lieutenants at chemicals firm Ineos who

“have reportedly been planning to save up to £4bn in tax after moving to Monaco.”

Lovely Patriotic fellow- loves the U.K. so much he wants to pay (no) tax in Monaco
 
saw this indepth, very informative post From a Highly respected and experienced Chief Fire Officer (now retired) ..... no spin, no bullshit, just says it as he sees it ( Re Grenfell)


Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)
Grenfell...
Who’d be a fire chief?
Who’d be a firefighter?
I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.
As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.
You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.
Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.
All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.
The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.
That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.
For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.
Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.
If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.
A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.
No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.
Why?
Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.
Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.
At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.
Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation
All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.
It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.
Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.
As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.
Grenfell.
Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.
You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.
Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.
Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.
What would you do?
How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?
Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.
Not so easy is it.
It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.
I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.
I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.
I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.
We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.
Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.
Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week
Who’d be a chief
Who’d be a firefighter now,
 
He's building a new factory in South WALES new land rover and employ 500 worker's and his companies pay millions in tax .why don't you nock Branson ?
 
Well obviously you are a racist and a fan of that Yaxley Lennon fellow. You don’t like Muslims much either, do you
. I wasn’t going to mention it but since you insist.

Billionaire tax avoiders.

Here’s an article about Britain’s richest man, the Brexit supporter Sir Jim Ratcliffe, and two of his key lieutenants at chemicals firm Ineos who

“have reportedly been planning to save up to £4bn in tax after moving to Monaco.”

Lovely Patriotic fellow- loves the U.K. so much he wants to pay (no) tax in Monaco
maybe theyll be neighbours of 'our' tax exiled (slum) landlord/ breeze block owner, in Monaco?

Birds of a feather and all that? :oops:
 
saw this indepth, very informative post From a Highly respected and experienced Chief Fire Officer (now retired) ..... no spin, no bullshit, just says it as he sees it ( Re Grenfell)


Below is a post from former chief fire officer from Derbyshire fire and rescue ( very good and highly respected chief)
Grenfell...
Who’d be a fire chief?
Who’d be a firefighter?
I’ve not read the Grenfell Inquiry yet. Something to look forward to next week.
As a firefighter, you spend decades being told to follow procedures and training. They work, fires get put out, you get to go home safely.
You are told you did a good job, you are audited and the auditors tell you that you are competent and professional. It is reaffirming and reassuring.
Step outside those procedures and you fail your assessment, you are not competent. You don’t want to be there.
All these procedures are written to tackle fire in buildings built to a regulated standard.
The building is supposed to behave in a predictable way. Arm Chair enthusiasts would imagine that fire is not predictable. Well, you are wrong, it is a matter of scientific fact that fire develops and behaves predictably depending on the fuel, air and environment.
That is why firefighters can have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that for the most part work and do the job. If fire was unpredictable you could not have an SOP.
For decades building regs worked and we never suffered a Grenfell even in the 80 and 90s when there were 40% more fires than we have today.
Likelihood and severity, you’ve heard these banded around. In the nineties the likelihood was massive but it seems nowadays the severity has mushroomed as whole buildings are burning down on a regular basis.
If you ever drove through Salford in the 90s a single burnt-out flat was a common sight as you looked up at the high rise buildings. Like a broken tooth.
A fire put out using tried and tested procedure in a building designed to contain the fire to the flat of origin. Most people in the other flats wouldn’t even know that a fire had occurred until the morning after.
No common fire alarm, no mobile phones yet a successful outcome and no mass evacuation.
Why?
Because the buildings were not wrapped in flammable material allowing unchecked spread up the facade and ingress through windows.
Because the internal separation was solid and fire-resistant, because mostly the fire doors unless vandalised worked.
At this time the fire brigade was the responsible authority for fire legislation. We issued fire certificates and our word was law.
Admittedly we didn’t issue certs on domestic property but such was our regulatory power in other premises the local authority building control accepted that we knew what we were about and went with our recommendation
All that changed through deregulation at the end of the 90s. (The reform act of 2005 in fact). I was in fire protection at the time and I remember the old hands predicting a disaster.
It was like giving the kids the keys to the sweet shop. Building owners were now (2006) responsible for the fire safety standards in the same way a manager is responsible for health and safety at work. Some do it well, some do it badly, some do what they can afford and hope it’s enough.
Well, it’s not good enough and it is coming home to roost.
As a chief, you expect your firefighters to follow the policy and be competent, you have the dubious pleasure of being ultimately responsible for making sure that this is the case. It is a massive responsibility, you do your best. You audit the boys and girls to death. They are sick of being assessed. But they are safe, competent and they go home at the end of the shift.
Grenfell.
Imagine turning up at a building where everything has gone wrong the whole fire protection system had failed and the fire is spreading through what should be concrete fire-resistant rooms and up the outside beyond your capability to reach it.
You now need to tell 200 firefighters to forget everything they ever learned and do things completely outside of every procedure they have trained on. Things that could get them killed. It’s a miracle none were.
Every fibre in your body is screaming to do something new and evacuate whilst every professional brain cell is saying “are you mad” if you evacuate the people in the flats with no breathing apparatus they are doomed and it will be seen to have been your call.
Evacuating a burning building means taking people from what you understand to be a place of relative safety (or at least it should be if built right) and asking them to enter smoke-filled corridors and stairs knowing some won’t make it. We are talking about people of all ages and abilities here. Your mum, your grandad, your kids.
What would you do?
How brave are you now sitting in your armchair with the daily mail sword drawn about to slay the guilty?
Making life and death decisions outside of policy because a building had been let slide as a result of a succession of systematic governmental failure, safe in the knowledge that if you lose one firefighter or members of the public are found in stairwells dead you will be squarely in the frame of “going outside of procedure”.
Not so easy is it.
It is no surprise that candidates for chief fire officers jobs total one or two per position when advertised these days.
I stand with Dany Cotton and I stand with London Fire Brigade.
I look forward to part two of the report that looks at root cause including building regs and I sincerely hope the author does his job properly.
I hope everyone understands that firefighters turn up when everyone else’s risk assessment had gone wrong and are tasked with sorting out the mess.
We are not chefs, a missed instruction does not result in a ruined dish. We have to take what ingredients we have been given and bake a cake on the hoof whilst the kitchen is on fire and then have some armchair baker who may have watched his mum make a jam tart once tell us how well we have done.
Don’t get me started on sprinklers. I’ve been vocal, been on the telly, been sat in front of ministers with hard evidence to prove the case and been fobbed off.
Politics is at the root of Grenfell, I doubt any politician will be vilified in the way firefighters and chiefs have this week
Who’d be a chief
Who’d be a firefighter now,

That's it in a (rather large!) nutshell, Sarge. Every uninformed fuckwit suddenly knows more about it than the experts.

Anyone defending Rees-Moggs' words is making a c**t of themself.
 
At the moment, of all the medicine imported by the NHS, 9% comes from the US. In contrast, 79% of medicine imports are from the European Union.

The US view is this is unfair to Americans, who pay more. (The product of having private healthcare IMHO).

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50295231

So the £500 million is rabid speculation.

Nothing rabid about it. It's what it says it is: a scenario based on paying the amounts Americans pay for drugs - the goal of US negotiators and on which US has got major concessions in recent negotiations with Canada, Mexico and South Korea.

Meanwhile: where does the figure of £50m come from, and why should we pay 50m for the privilege of replacing working. cheaper drugs with US versions?

BTW - the reason US citizens pay more for drugs is because pharma cartel makessure the FDA won't allow the import of drugs that aren't approved and private healthcare is diversely managed so can't negotiate for the benefit of their patients, who they're in business to make money from anyway so there's not a lot of incentive.
 
Does anyone actually believe that a UK government would purposely land the NHS (a tax payer funded organisation) with an additional bill of £500 million?
 
If Boris drops his pride and commits to an election pact with Farage the election is won.

If he fails to do this he will lose the election.

Maybe, maybe not. He's certainly going to make it harder for himself if Farage is working against him and leeching his vote.

But I guess he also knows that if he wants to make that pact, he has to drop his deal and go for a No Deal Brexit.
And perhaps, behind all the bluster, BoJo knows he doesn't want to have to be the PM that has to deal with that epic disaster.
 
Does anyone actually believe that a UK government would purposely land the NHS (a tax payer funded organisation) with an additional bill of £500 million?

They will never want to do it - but it may be the cost of a trade deal with the US.

And given that one of the major purposes of Brexit was to allow the UK to do its own trade deals with the rest of the world, and the US is both the world's largest economy, and our biggest non-EU trading partner, I think the idea is that a trade deal with the US is desirable in the face of Brexit, and almost a necessity in the face of a No Deal Brexit.
 
  • React
Reactions: m
Does anyone actually believe that a UK government would purposely land the NHS (a tax payer funded organisation) with an additional bill of £500 million?

A quick review of all the reasons why a government led by Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Gove and the vulture capitalist Patel would not, please. Won't take a jiffy.
 
A quick review of all the reasons why a government led by Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Gove and the vulture capitalist Patel would not, please. Won't take a jiffy.
Self defeating. Sure fire way of being evicted from No.10 (and No.11)
 
Does anyone actually believe that a UK government would purposely land the NHS (a tax payer funded organisation) with an additional bill of £500 million?

Yes, if it means they get a shiny Trade deal with the US which Johnson can shout from the rooftops while trying to ignore the implications of any effects on the NHS which aren't likely to fully kick in whilst he is in power.
 
Back
Top Bottom