You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This should hurt Johnson, hes been saying he wouldnt do this whilst negotiating exactly that
there is no way NHS can afford to pay US prices for drugs
exact same drug costs 4x more in America than NICE pays on average, for newer drugs its often many (100s of) times more.
In America (& other countries) they are better at getting cheaper generics though
-which is why the governments concession to let patents run for longer from these documents is potentially very bad for NHS budgets.
of course Trump has been bragging about this for a while
Corbyn has the smoking gun.
Shame for him that its a starting pistol. The documents achieved more for him when redacted.
dont stop believing mefty !
Corbyn has the smoking gun. The contents of that unredacted report are utterly outrageous (assuming the précis I have read is true) and run directly contra to promises Johnson has made.
This should be enough to unite people against Johnson, it really should.
Jezza has the means now, right now. He has to make this count, publicly, repeatedly and loudly. Make damned sure that Johnson has to answer questions about this document and how it runs contra to his assurances.
This ^^^^
If Labour can't use this to totally undermine de Pfeffel then they should just give up. Maybe Labour released it a bit early in the campaign but at least it deflects away Jeremys terrible performance on Andrew Neils interview.
Hopefully Andrew Neil will grill Boris about this a bit, I'm sure he'll make Blohard look a bit more stupid and untrustworthy than Labour have done so far.
Now the right wing ****terati want Corbyn done for treason. Is there any end to the madness?
No and there never will be.
So - the well researched Andrew Neil - failed to mention that Lesley Perrin (the centre of his AS argument) resigned from the Labour party as she was being investigated some time early on.
So how much coverage does this get?
Warsi getting a very long piece on World at One right now.
Unfortunately for the faithful it's all lies. As the underacted documents are available the lies won't get much traction going forward.
All it does is play into the Tory narrative (here's the rebuttal):
“Jeremy Corbyn is getting desperate and is out-and-out lying to the public about what these documents contain. He has always believed in conspiracy theories – which is why he has failed to crack down on the scourge of antisemitism in his party. This is the man that has caused huge offence by blaming an imaginary ‘Zionist lobby’ for society’s ills and now he has decided to smear UK officials too.“People should not believe a word that he says – this stunt is simply a smokescreen for the fact that he has no plan for Brexit and that he has been forced to admit that he wants to increase taxes for millions of families.
“As we have consistently made clear: the NHS will not be on the table in any future trade deal and the price that the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. This sort of conspiracy theory fuelled nonsense is not befitting of the leader of a major political party
It’s shame that the “stunt” is a government document that lays bare what an UK:USA trade deal will be all about… and we will be DESPERATE to sign (for political reasons, not because it will do anything to help mitigate the self inflicted economical damage of Johnson’s Trump led Brexit).
So – the well researched Andrew Neil – failed to mention that Lesley Perrin (the centre of his AS argument) resigned from the Labour party as she was being investigated some time early on.
If that fact helps Corbyn's case then Corbyn is remiss in failing to mention it. Maybe Corbyn is part of the MSM consipracy to make him look bad. Makes you think.
lays bare what an UK:USA trade deal will be all about
One doesn't need to be perspicacious to realise that it would be all about trade.
It’s shame that the “stunt” is a government document that lays bare what an UK:USA trade deal will be all about… and we will be DESPERATE to sign (for political reasons, not because it will do anything to help mitigate the self inflicted economical damage of Johnson’s Trump led Brexit).
Surely this has been glaringly obvious to anyone with anything between their ears for at least three years now?
One doesn’t need to be perspicacious to realise that it would be all about trade.
...and we currently have a trade surplus with the USA, so there's no need to do a trade deal unless it suits us - we can walk away with "no deal".
Plus we're currently in a trade *and* political union with a couple of dozen countries who don't have state owned health services and it hasn't killed the NHS.
oohh a new word
nor do you have to be perspicacious to realise that we will have little leverage against the $20tn US economy in trade talks
We are going to get shafted by Trump & you just know he wont even have the goddamn common courtesy to give us a reach-around!
Loving the tory boys trying to pretend this is a hoax
you'd have better chance if Johnson hadnt ALREADY conceded to some of the US demands by removing legaly binding protection on rights, food & enviro standards from Withdrawl Agreement to meaningless political declaration
Surely this has been glaringly obvious to anyone with anything between their ears for at least three years now?
Whassup? You appear to have missed something 🙂
And awful lot of people still think a trade deal is just about tariffs.
Daz - a labour party worthy of the name would have spent the last 3 years pointing this truism it out, not spouting bollocks about 'honouring the will of the people'.
This stuff thats come out today is about as surprising as when we all found out George Michael was gay. You'd think the opposition* might have mentioned the fact that Brexit is a bloody stupid idea and this is the inevitable, wearyingly predictable consequence of it. Along with all manner of other shit
* the word is used figuratively etc...
we will have little leverage against the $20tn US economy in trade talks
Yup, so we may end up having to walk away and continue to enjoy our trade surplus with the USA. What we don't have to do is do a deal that doesn't suit us.
In contrast I'm not sure the UK had a veto over TTIP.
In contrast I’m not sure the UK had a veto over TTIP.
The UK (Dave) was the enthusiastic cheerleader for TTIP in Brussels. The rest of the EU vetoed it despite 'our' best efforts because it was a stitch up. So don't be in any doubt that the Tory party will happily sell us all out to the US, without a second thought
I’m old enough to remember Britsh Rail, British Leyland, the National Coal Board and British Gas.
None of them leave good memories, why would it be different this time around.
YOu do realise that our " privatised" utilities and railways are actually largely run by governent ownened and controlled companies? Just they are owned and controlled by german, french, italian and dutch government entities.
OPur high prices subsidise buyiners in those countries
Also Scottish water which is state controlled / owned is cheaper and performs better than those privatised English water companies
“Rebecca Long-Bailey”
What is that the answer to?
Is it really “who shall we send in Corbyn’s stead for the next leaders debate?”
Loving the tory boys trying to pretend this is a hoax
Not sure anyone has questioned whether the document is real, what has been questioned is whether the document provides anything to back up Corbyn's claims - and the pretty universal conclusion from the journalists present is that it doesn't, one example quote
Right. I'm going to call it. These documents don't say what Labour says they say.
They are technical talks, from non-political negotiating teams, exploring each others' systems, and indicating areas for future discussion.
YOu do realise that our ” privatised” utilities and railways are actually largely run by governent ownened and controlled companies? Just they are owned and controlled by german, french, italian and dutch government entities.
Yes.
So why doesn't the UK govt force them into supplying the kind of service that the UK wants? I suggest it's because they don't want to.
So if they are running the show, from the top down, with their hands fully on the tiller, will they have any more reason to do so?
Well, along with other documents the USA have already released, this document makes it clear what areas the USA want included. And Johnson has made it clear he wants a quick deal, and Truss has made it clear the the deal won’t be voted on by parliament. Work the rest out for yourself.
In contrast I’m not sure the UK had a veto over TTIP
except it did, look at the fuss Walloonia (sp?) caused over CETA
and the Tories who were one one the biggest proponents of TTIP, ask Liam Fox
Boomerlives - the UK government has little control and as tories do not want to use what they have. So what is unique about the UK England that the english cannot run utilities and monopolies but the scottish government and the rest of europe can?
and the pretty universal conclusion from the journalists present is that it doesn’t
I look forward to the nation's top journalists taking apart the tories claims with such forensic zeal. I don't actually care whether the docs provide evidence or not. What's interesting, and encouraging, is that labour are starting to play the tories at their own game. It's achieved it's objective by getting everyone talking about something other than anti-semitism, and getting them talking about the tories relationship with Donald Trump and their intentions regarding the NHS. Well played I'd say.
This stuff thats come out today is about as surprising as when we all found out George Michael was gay.
My girlfriend at the time and her Mum burst in to tears when the news broke. Me laughing and wondering why they hadn't worked it out sooner didn't seem to go down too well!
YUp
NHS had already moved up the voters topics of concern. This is a very good play and ne they can keep on hammering on at.
the UK government has little control and as tories do not want to use what they have.
I would point out, in the interests of balance, that Blair and Brown had a perfect opportunity to flex their muscles in this respect but chose not to.
Calling it a Tory issues is disingenuous, it's been a UK issue.
And Scottish Water do have an advantage of having such an boundless supply of product 🙂
This will no doubt make the main bulletins:
Norman Smith, BBC:
Is there any evidence or proof that the British government is willing to say yes to these US demands?
Barry Gardiner, Shadow Trade Secretary:
No, absolutely not.
The question is, does anyone trust a Tory government not to say yes to the demands, despite their current protestations.
I think it's a given.
Mind you, Trump might be gone by Xmas
I think it’s a given.
Mind you, Trump might be gone by Xmas
US Pharma had the same stuff in TTIP under Obama
Yup, so we may end up having to walk away and continue to enjoy our trade surplus with the USA. What we don’t have to do is do a deal that doesn’t suit us.
This isnt the case though
We are about to throw up barriers to our biggest market
Unless we can strike deals elsewhere to offset that then our imports cost us more & our exports are less desirable
This is why we are going to get shafted in a trump/usa trade deal
Here’s the headline though, a trade deal with the USA can’t/won’t offset anything… it’ll be a political not economical decision to sign one, and do so quickly, to look to be doing something useful with Brexit.
Plus we’re currently in a trade *and* political union with a couple of dozen countries who don’t have state owned health services and it hasn’t killed the NHS.
Not sure you know how this works. Simply having a deal with a country doesn't guarantee the NHS dies - obviously not.
But in this particular instance, post-Brexit we will need trade deals with lots of countries as soon as possible, since we will have NO trade deals of our own. We will essentially be desperate. Everyone else knows this and will be able to force us to accede to their terms. They will hold all the cards. Their terms will include rules that allow them to sell preferentially to the NHS at higher prices. This is something they've been trying to do for years, AFAIK, although I do not know the details of how it would work.
And there we have it. Anyone still want to claim there isn't ingrained bias in the MSM, and especially the BBC towards Johsnson? A total ******* stitch up.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1199697628545650688?s=20
It's handy when someone starts off:
Right. I’m going to call it.
It is a pretty good indicator that what follows is a cloud of heffer dust, so you can save time by not reading it.
Anyone still want to claim there isn’t ingrained bias in the MSM, and especially the BBC towards Johsnson?
Johnson being a no show isn’t a sign of ingrained bias though, is it. He’s a no show on Friday as well. As is Corbyn. How do those organising the TV events force them to attend?
And isn't the BBC presently reporting that 'no government ministers were present' at the meetings about the NHS that the labour party are reporting on?
Erm... yes... except Liam Fox, the secretary of state for international trade, who was present at all of them.
Does he not count, then?
Anyone still want to claim there isn’t ingrained bias in the MSM, and especially the BBC towards Johsnson?
Eh? If the BBC was biased towards Boris, wouldn't he be willing to do the interview? Surely the fact he's not doing it indicates he's expecting a grilling?
From the Grauniad:
Labour source tells me BBC informed them Boris Johnson would do an Andrew Neil interview next week.
Turns out no such agreement had been reached.
If Tory leader isn't subjected to same scrutiny as Mr Corbyn, but his team was told he would be, that's a problem for the BBC. https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1199461520780021760 …
Eh?
You don't think there's anything wrong in the supposedly impartial national broadcaster interviewing candidates with their most aggressive and difficult interviewer before ensuring they'd also be interviewing the PM? If they didn't have the commitment of Johnson they shouldn't have broadcast the other interviews. This is even more the case when you see how Neil conducted the interviews. It's bullshit, plain and simple.
Eh? If the BBC was biased towards Boris, wouldn’t he be willing to do the interview?
In a fair representation type of way you would expect for all the interview to be lined up and agreed before any of them took place. Unless Andrew Neil is going to empty chair Boris.
How do those organising the TV events force them to attend?
And now we have people who have been complaining that Corbyn can’t get airtime (which was always bogus) saying that his interview shouldn’t have been broadcast if Johnson is going to no show.
Any doubt now? The BBC are not impartial. Not only that but it appears they have actively misled the labour party.
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1199722617156100097?s=20
Hmm… Johnson’s people say he’ll show… and row back on that after seeing Sturgeon and Corbyn being interviewed, and are now avoiding setting a firm date? Seems far more likely than the “BBC” deliberately misleading Corbyn’s team for whatever reason you have whirling around your tinfoil encased brain.
Kelvin - they don't; how can they?
I'm sure there will be attempts at behind the scenes persuasion and public embarrassment.
As for Kerley's comment, wouldn't it be great if Neil empty chaired Johnson? What about Johnson being represented by a puppet?
A puppet of a chicken?
They are technical talks, from non-political negotiating teams, exploring each others’ systems, and indicating areas for future discussion.
Whatever. There are pretty damning comments regarding what will be and what won't be acceptable and/or necessary. A couple interesting points here regarding regulations and custom union/single market.
https://twitter.com/thatginamiller/status/1199708734806732805
Hmm… Johnson’s people say he’ll show… and row back on that after seeing Sturgeon and Corbyn being interviewed, and are now avoiding setting a firm date?
Hm. If he tries to put it off and ends up succumbing to pressure, his will be the last one, and if it's bad it'll be what people remember going to the polls.
May tried avoiding everything. It didn’t really work that well for her. I expect he’ll do it, but Cummings will have a whole series of dead cats lined up for that day.
How do those organising the TV events force them to attend?
Thats the challenge. What needs to happen is that not-showing gets empty chaired with a tub of lard and just a series of accusations gets read out for 30mins, presented as facts as they won't turn up to defend them. It needs to be a huge disgrace to be seen avoiding something like this.
Because the govt isn’t/wouldn’t be capable of doing it. Otherwise it would already be forcing change on the private companies through legislation and oversight. Govt’s of either colour over the last 20 – 30 years, I am referring to.
Boomer, we kind of did this when the openreach thing came up, but look at the recent history ( 10 years ) of the East coast line. I work in private industry. Some of it is really shitly done. This idea that public sector: bad, private sector: good, is absolute bunk. Particularly when the taxpayer gets to carry the risk and the private sector gets to trouser any profits.
Bxp ltd really hurt labour by pulling out of Tory seats
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1199728255433093121?s=19
Constituency level polling out later tonight is going to show some worrying things for labour I reckon
binners
Subscriber
You what? It couldn’t have worked better!
It literally, mathematically, didn't work at all. Corbyn wasn't elected by the entryists, their scheme failed completely, all they did was give money to the Labour party. Sorry, just facts.
Don't know if he's Cummings or goings?
https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1199776212769525760?s=09
Kimbers^^^ re Cummings.
Too little information to assess relevance/importance.
If he has resigned as SPAD in chief, has he cut all links to tories?
He can resign but continue as before.
Who knows?
As for Bouton's reporting of Johnson opting out of Neil interrogation, that's much more significant than Cummings and can be used by all other parties to score points - and by media to challenge tory talking heads.
If he has resigned as SPAD in chief, has he cut all links to tories?
He can resign but continue as before.
.....but can now say whatever the hell he likes as he’s no longer bound by rules of electoral purdah.
Classic Dom.
Anyone still in doubt? I mean it's not like there's anything important to report, like selling of the NHS or avoiding scrutiny by journalists.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1199780448056041472?s=20
perchy - I doubt Cummings has ever regarded himself as being subject to any rules, let alone just Purdah.
About Cummings from BBC news website....'However, the BBC has confirmed with the Cabinet Office that he resigned as a special adviser at the start of the campaign - along with all the other special advisers - as a formality.
Stepping down at that point meant he would be able to campaign without breaking any rules.'
in other words, nothing to see here.
Yeah constituency polling doesn't look good for labour
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1199810742016466944
Just been listening to John Curtice comment on MRP/YouGov poll; poll size c100k so statistically valid.
Bleak.
Needs major cock-up by Johnson and stellar performance by Corbyn to recover lost ground - provided, as always, that poll results are (relatively) representative.
If Johnson avoids Andrew Neil that will massively help tory cause.
Corbyn needs to find new front on which to attack - and at same time maintain pressure on tories known weak spots and lies.
Disappointingly, LDs appear to be going nowhere in terms of seats although they may be winning more votes
Equally disappointing is that the Greens appear to be making no progress; if there was ever a time when their share of the vote should grow it's now.
Two weeks left and this is not where I hoped Labour would be.
If I was a betting man....£20 on outright majority for tories.
Of course the greens and lib dems are making no headway - we can all see that in most seats voting for either would help the tories. Its an unfortunate effect of FPTP. 3rd party squeeze
Looks like I am on to win one of my bets - that the lib dems end up with less seats than now. Swinson has run a awful campaign which has not helped.
Yeah constituency polling doesn’t look good for labour.
You really think the Conservatives can gain 60+ seats despite a few guaranteed losses in Scotland and Wales?
Looks like I am on to win one of my bets – that the lib dems end up with less seats than now.
Hurrah! Those pesky LibDems are losing support (meaning more Tory MPs)… hurrah! The opposition to the opposition are neutered, and Labour will be victorious as the official opposition for another 10 years…
I think we might well see calderdale flip to labour aswell, for example.
Lots of Labour voters from 2017 still saying they won’t do again this time, but I hope you’re right mattyfez. I’ll be voting Labour.
So if that poll is right I guess the people who said labour should be more pro-remain were wrong? Tories winning seats in midlands and northern leave voting seats, lib dems tanking. Seems fairly clear to me. Probably still enough remain turkeys voting for xmas too. Farage wins again. Oh well.
No, Labour have turned off people on all sides by having a leader that no one trusts on Brexit. People don’t want Corbyn as PM. Get out and talk to people, no matter how they voted in the Referendum, Corbyn is not someone they want to vote into power.
Not so sure, I had a quick chat with a the guy I in the sandwich shop where I get lunch from a few times a week, he's more labour but his constituency is tory/lib dem, he's voting tactically for lib dem.
It's all about preventing a tory majority, and pretty much every one I've spoken to is voting tactically other than the ones who blindly vote tory anyway.
Hopefully this polling analysis makes more people think that way Mattyfez.
Not a surprise leave voting labour voters don't trust Corbyn on brexit as he's promising a second ref with no real leave option. The lib dems tanking seems to suggest many are sticking with labour tactically, but probably not enough. So the story is leave voters voting for the party guaranteeing leave, and most remainers sticking with labour, but not enough to make the difference. Leave wins again, that's not down to Corbyn, it's down to leave voters voting for a leave party. (if the poll is right of course)
There are people who don’t want Brexit, but are still voting Tory, because… Corbyn… you’ll get your head around people having to weigh up many different things they do or don’t want to happen to the UK. They see Corbyn as a far bigger risk to the UK than Brexit (I obviously don’t agree).
There are people who don’t want Brexit, but are still voting Tory, because… Corbyn
Blimey. I'm used to remain mental acrobatics but this is a new trick. I'm sure there are some kamikaze remainers who will vote tory but the number will be tiny. If that poll is right the conclusions are obvious, the country is still pro-leave, and that's why the tories are ahead. The entire tory campaign has been based on this one single issue, and nothing else. If blaming Corbyn gives you some comfort then good luck with that, but it's not that simple. As I've said many times, the public will get what they want and deserve, especially the northern working class tory voters. One thing I'm certain about though, is that if labour lose as this poll suggests, it won't be because they weren't remain enough.
frankconway
Subscriber
About Cummings from BBC news website….’However, the BBC has confirmed with the Cabinet Office that he resigned as a special adviser at the start of the campaign – along with all the other special advisers – as a formality.
Yep. Of course actual civil servants can't do this, only the party political hacks.
If blaming Corbyn gives you some comfort then good luck with that, but it’s not that simple.
Sorry. Yes. There aren’t people voting to keep Corbyn out. I dreamt it. He’s more popular than Jesus. Carry on.
The reality is, the country is still split pretty much 50:50 on Brexit. Where as, when it comes to Corbyn, it’s more like 80:20 against.