Corbyn Coup on NHS

[Churchill]

:dncg: dang autocorrect!  :fcplm:



*Bigger*

 ::

[Ciaphas]

As I understand it after just watching  ITV News and listen to a Political Commentator





 Officials from the UK not members of the  Government have been having discussions with their counterparts in the US about trade including medicine off and on since 2016 , no moves or decisions have been even proposed yet let alone demanded to date.



As you say these documents have dust on them, a tactical decision by Labour to dust them off by Corbyn to deflect attention away from his lack of leadership

Liam Fox was involved in at least one of the meeting. Even if no ministers had been directly involved the the civil servants are acting on the behalf of the government so you're splitting hairs.



Listening to a guest on LBC the tone of the document made it clear that the US feels we need them far more than they need us. Additionally the US wants a no deal Brexit to fully isolate the UK from the EU.

[BeElBeeBub]

I can take on board some of your observations here.



I suspect that few politicians, particularly after forty years of being relatively impotent on the inside of one of the worlds largest protectionist trade regimes, are experienced trade negotiators. My own preference would be to see the government of the day appoint, or at least attempt to appoint, leading figures in the commercial world, the nations real wealth creators, to fulfill the role om appropriate terms.

I don't think "leading figures in the commercial world" would work.  I think this is part of the collective misunderstanding that trade negotiations are similar to commercial negotiations and therefore "business people" are best placed to do it (particularly "celebrity" types). This conflation is one Trump often uses as if a) he's a good businessman and b)negotiating with carpet fitters is the same as grinding the detail of a trade negotiation.



As a point of fact many civil servants who conducted EU trade negotiators were from the UK so we do have a pool (albeit small) of experienced people. The problem is they are all being ignored when they say "what the government is saying is incorrect".

In terms of negotiating a trade deal with the US, I for one see them as a valuable and mutually profitable partner. Even on WTO terms they are our largest national export market with some 20% of our exports going there. However let us put prescription medications in proportion; The NHS only spends in the region of 10% of its total expenditure on prescription drugs imported from the USA.

a couple of points.

yes the US is a big important partner for the UK.



but the US is the second largest trade block we trade with. The EU27 constitute the largest.  



Before you say "the EU27 isn't a country" the whole point of the SM/CU is that *for trade purposes* they function as a single block.



The physical origin of the drugs isn't so much the issue.  The point is whether or not the drugs are single source or multiple source.



Currently there are many drugs that the NHS has a choice of suppliers, and therefore competitive pressure reduces the prices. This is only possible because they are out of patent in Europe and the UK.

 

The aim of the US is to align the UKs patent laws with the US ones so that drugs that can currently be sourced as generic will only be available from the patent holder.



As an illustrative example I saw on the news a certain drug for Chrones disease that costs around £1k a treatment via the generic version is £8k in the US as a patented product.



By extending the patent laws pharmaceutical companies can increase the prices they can charge the NHS even if the pill is made in the UK.

The probable next government has categorically denied it will compromise the NHS in terms of a trade deal with the US - no ambiguity, no obfuscation; simply an unconditional denial.

like the unconditional promise the PM gave that he wouldn't ask for an extension?.....



You can see why I might take this governments word with a clinically frowned upon dose of salt.....

This is response to an opposition which has comprehensively misrepresented, obfuscated and misinterpreted these documents at the precise moment that their Corbyn needs rescuing from one of the most damning and humiliating public exposes of just how little grip or undertstanding he truly has of either his party or on reality in general.

Yeah, I'm not going to defend Corbyn on this one. I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I don't think a number of his flagship policies are credible (for nuance - I do like some of his stances and policies, and I do think the media is biased against him in general, but I don't buy the "magic grandpa" carp and I don't support him)



There is probably more than a grain of truth that he brought this out to distract form his monumental cork ups.



On the other hand *that* shouldn't distract from the fact that these documents show how the government's public presentation of a post brexit US trade deal (it will be super beneficial, very quick, very easy and they will give us all our demands and we will not have to concede any of theirs in return) is BS and that they are making unforced errors already.

[Major Sinic]

Yup, it's the various discussions between the US and UK about a potential trade deal.



There isn't really anything particularly odd about the US discussing these points and putting them forward as "wants".



Short of walking out of the room every time the points are raised by the US there isn't anything the UK can do to not discuss them.



These sorts of discussions are *exactly* what I would have expected and the US positions are pretty much what was expected given their public stance.



So that's the boring but out of the way.



Now to the 2 actual points that this "leak" (it's not, the docs have been public domain for a while) does throw up.



What this *does* show is that the UK government is not very good at this trade negotiation game. Specifically they are bad at managing public expectations (something of a hallmark of the entire brexit process).



They went with "XYZ are off the table, no discussions!"



Then when it turned out there had been discussions about XYZ, they look like liars



They could have gone with "there are many things the US would like such as XYZ and they will press us to give them XYZ, however we will not concede in these areas - no deal is better than a bad deal (to coin a phrase)".



That way they wouldn't look like liars when it turns out there were discussions.



However that is a minor point.



The second point is that the US has these objectives.



The UK has (if we are to believe the government) categorically ruled out conceding on these objectives in any way.



Therefore it will be very much harder for the UK to conclude an FTA with the US, especially given the tight (self imposed) timetable.



The government, by telling the public the US deal will be quick, has put pressure on itself to conclude the deal quickly or lose face back home. The other side, already in the more dominant position of being the far bigger partner now has even more leverage.



All of the above shows how inexperienced our politicans are at trade negotiations.

I can take on board some of your observations here.



I suspect that few politicians, particularly after forty years of being relatively impotent on the inside of one of the worlds largest protectionist trade regimes, are experienced trade negotiators. My own preference would be to see the government of the day appoint, or at least attempt to appoint, leading figures in the commercial world, the nations real wealth creators, to fulfill the role om appropriate terms.



In terms of negotiating a trade deal with the US, I for one see them as a valuable and mutually profitable partner. Even on WTO terms they are our largest national export market with some 20% of our exports going there. However let us put prescription medications in proportion; The NHS only spends in the region of 10% of its total expenditure on prescription drugs imported from the USA.



The probable next government has categorically denied it will compromise the NHS in terms of a trade deal with the US - no ambiguity, no obfuscation; simply an unconditional denial.



This is response to an opposition which has comprehensively misrepresented, obfuscated and misinterpreted these documents at the precise moment that their Corbyn needs rescuing from one of the most damning and humiliating public exposes of just how little grip or undertstanding he truly has of either his party or on reality in general.

[BeElBeeBub]

As I understand it after just watching  ITV News and listen to a Political Commentator





 Officials from the UK not members of the  Government have been having discussions with their counterparts in the US about trade including medicine off and on since 2016 , no moves or decisions have been even proposed yet let alone demanded to date.



As you say these documents have dust on them, a tactical decision by Labour to dust them off by Corbyn to deflect attention away from his lack of leadership

Yup, it's the various discussions between the US and UK about a potential trade deal.



There isn't really anything particularly odd about the US discussing these points and putting them forward as "wants".



Short of walking out of the room every time the points are raised by the US there isn't anything the UK can do to not discuss them.



These sorts of discussions are *exactly* what I would have expected and the US positions are pretty much what was expected given their public stance.



So that's the boring but out of the way.



Now to the 2 actual points that this "leak" (it's not, the docs have been public domain for a while) does throw up.



What this *does* show is that the UK government is not very good at this trade negotiation game. Specifically they are bad at managing public expectations (something of a hallmark of the entire brexit process).



They went with "XYZ are off the table, no discussions!"



Then when it turned out there had been discussions about XYZ, they look like liars



They could have gone with "there are many things the US would like such as XYZ and they will press us to give them XYZ, however we will not concede in these areas - no deal is better than a bad deal (to coin a phrase)".



That way they wouldn't look like liars when it turns out there were discussions.



However that is a minor point.



The second point is that the US has these objectives.



The UK has (if we are to believe the government) categorically ruled out conceding on these objectives in any way.



Therefore it will be very much harder for the UK to conclude an FTA with the US, especially given the tight (self imposed) timetable.



The government, by telling the public the US deal will be quick, has put pressure on itself to conclude the deal quickly or lose face back home. The other side, already in the more dominant position of being the far bigger partner now has even more leverage.



All of the above shows how inexperienced our politicans are at trade negotiations.

[BeElBeeBub]

As you say "bugger profits", let's keep the NHS as one of the world's largest purchasing organisations with the negotiating clout that comes with that ranking...!!!

 :dncg: dang autocorrect!  :fcplm:



*Bigger*

[Nick]

I really don't know what to believe. I have just watched Corbyn deliver copies of a document over 450 pages long to each journalist sitting in front of him - obviously some sort of leak - which he says proves that the Conservatives are indeed contemplating a trade deal with the USA which includes the NHS post Brexit.



Surely this by no means proves that the NHS will be in a finalised deal. Isn't this fake news? He has stressed the vast amounts that US pharma companies will demand for meds etc. I am sure this will dominate the news items. I have never heard such a subdued media response. No doubt they are reading furiously.



It has just been revealed (Sky news) that they are dated 2016-18 so that brings up a couple of questions straight away.

I've seen this document Toots with most of the pages blacked out but all the headings and sub-headings are legible. It doesn't mention the NHS anywhere.



Watch Politics Live from today with Barry Gardner. He wafts the paper around and only lets the presenter see one page, the notes page as to who was present. Observe that he covers pages up with blank paper as quickly as he can. Nobody gets to see this shocker of a document. He even refused to to let her have a copy.



Apparently the document was merely a US wish list anyway and is dates 24th July 2017.

[Churchill]

The normal prejudices are on display as much as ever in this post.



The Corbyn 'launch' of this supposed expose as evidence that the Tories have put the 'NHS up for sale' is of course a massive exaggeration bordering on an outright lie.



It is a document which has reputedly been in Labour's possession for some time. It is an exchange of understanding between civil servants from both nations regarding possible areas of negotiation, involved no government ministers, no undertakings by either nation. Boris Johnson has categorically confirmed that the NHS is not for sale. Less than 10% prescription drugs purchased by the NHS are souced from the US. It is a storm without foundation in a teacup.



It is patently obvious to all but a blind man that it has been used now to deflect attention away from Corbyn's woeful and inept performance last night when Andrew Niel sliced and diced him over Labour's 1/ institutional anti semitism, 2/his lies that only those earning over £80k would pay more tax,3/ the complete absence of any means (other than more state borrowing) to pay for the £90 billion or so finance the totally regressive reversal of the pension qualifying age increase for women 4/ Corbyn's ignorance of the current highest rate of income tax 5/ Corbyns ignorance of the massive amounts of personal tax paid by the wealthy 6/ Corbyn's inability to rationalise his moronic policy regarding Brexit 7/Corbyn made it patently obvious that the security and safety of the UK and its citizens is seriously in doubt under a left wing marxist government led by him.

Exactly I have just watched a video of Abbott confirming its true that Boris wants to sell off the NHS.



This needs moving to the Twilight Zone  ::

[Major Sinic]

The normal prejudices are on display as much as ever in this post.



The Corbyn 'launch' of this supposed expose as evidence that the Tories have put the 'NHS up for sale' is of course a massive exaggeration bordering on an outright lie.



It is a document which has reputedly been in Labour's possession for some time. It is an exchange of understanding between civil servants from both nations regarding possible areas of negotiation, involved no government ministers, no undertakings by either nation. Boris Johnson has categorically confirmed that the NHS is not for sale. Less than 10% prescription drugs purchased by the NHS are souced from the US. It is a storm without foundation in a teacup.



It is patently obvious to all but a blind man that it has been used now to deflect attention away from Corbyn's woeful and inept performance last night when Andrew Niel sliced and diced him over Labour's 1/ institutional anti semitism, 2/his lies that only those earning over £80k would pay more tax,3/ the complete absence of any means (other than more state borrowing) to pay for the £90 billion or so finance the totally regressive reversal of the pension qualifying age increase for women 4/ Corbyn's ignorance of the current highest rate of income tax 5/ Corbyns ignorance of the massive amounts of personal tax paid by the wealthy 6/ Corbyn's inability to rationalise his moronic policy regarding Brexit 7/Corbyn made it patently obvious that the security and safety of the UK and its citizens is seriously in doubt under a left wing marxist government led by him.

[patman post]

What they *do* want is to dismantle the various systems in place that prevent them from making bugger profits.

As you say "bugger profits", let's keep the NHS as one of the world's largest purchasing organisations with the negotiating clout that comes with that ranking...!!!

[Churchill]

It reinforces what we already know that the US is making firm demands regarding the NHS.



It seems there is an issue around patent duration meaning the UK will be paying more than we currently do. The difference in cost is considerably more.



All indications are that the UK will be distancing itself from the EU in order to avoid conflicts which would arise if the UK sought to simultaneously negotiate close trade deals with both the EU and US. The UK will be desperate for a quick trade deal and the US will extract their pound of flesh in return.



The Conservatives have already caused extensive harm to the NHS so I don't buy the arguement that the government wouldn't continue to do so on the grounds that it would cost them votes. They seem to doing quite well so far despite their awful track record.



Even if Mr Johnson is telling the truth about the US he is a serial liar and nobody who isn't biased in his favour will believe him.



Interestingly these documents were already on Reddit r/worldpolitics for a month but haven't attracted much attention until now.



https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/dkzlfc/officialsensitive_great_britain_is_practically/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share">https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/ ... urce=share">https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/dkzlfc/officialsensitive_great_britain_is_practically/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

As I understand it after just watching  ITV News and listen to a Political Commentator





 Officials from the UK not members of the  Government have been having discussions with their counterparts in the US about trade including medicine off and on since 2016 , no moves or decisions have been even proposed yet let alone demanded to date.



As you say these documents have dust on them, a tactical decision by Labour to dust them off by Corbyn to deflect attention away from his lack of leadership

[BeElBeeBub]

The patent extension is a big thing.



The US are asking for it.



The UK doesn't want to give it *but* it may come down to a choice between giving in or not getting the US trade deal BJ desperately wants.



US corporations don't want to dismantle the NHS, buy it, kill it anything like that.



The NHS is a US pharmaceutical company's dream. A massive state funded buyer if their products. They already make billions from it supplying much needed drugs and services.



What they *do* want is to dismantle the various systems in place that prevent them from making bugger profits.



An NHS forced to buy their products at whatever price they want (because of extended patents and other measures) is their dream.

[Ciaphas]

It reinforces what we already know that the US is making firm demands regarding the NHS.



It seems there is an issue around patent duration meaning the UK will be paying more than we currently do. The difference in cost is considerably more.



All indications are that the UK will be distancing itself from the EU in order to avoid conflicts which would arise if the UK sought to simultaneously negotiate close trade deals with both the EU and US. The UK will be desperate for a quick trade deal and the US will extract their pound of flesh in return.



The Conservatives have already caused extensive harm to the NHS so I don't buy the arguement that the government wouldn't continue to do so on the grounds that it would cost them votes. They seem to doing quite well so far despite their awful track record.



Even if Mr Johnson is telling the truth about the US he is a serial liar and nobody who isn't biased in his favour will believe him.



Interestingly these documents were already on Reddit r/worldpolitics for a month but haven't attracted much attention until now.



https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/dkzlfc/officialsensitive_great_britain_is_practically/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share">https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/ ... urce=share">https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/dkzlfc/officialsensitive_great_britain_is_practically/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

[Churchill]

Probably had enough of waiting for our Poloticians to stop arguing  and getting nowhere for the last three and half years like the rest of us,

[patman post]

There is something going on the NHS is claiming they are short of some drugs for certain conditions, Brexit has not happened yet

Pfizer, for one, has already moved out. Why wait for the axe to fall getting out the way...?