Some of it is pie-in-the-sky, but i'm not wholly averse to their policies and I have voted for Lib Dem in the past before.
However, their main policy basically ignores my opinion, not just as in them disagreeing, the Lib Dems have simply disregarded it.
Just me?
US firms are ALREADY able to sell products and services to the NHS. In fact they already DO.Their claim these documents show that ministers have agreed to open the NHS market up to the US as part of a trade deal is patently false. If they had even a shred of evidence to expose the Tories were lying it would be presented clearly. BoJo wasn't even PM at the time these talks were held.
I've not seen that report mate, but there clearly is a big north/south divide and it's therefore extremely unfortunate that the one government minister who was really trying his best to try to fix that - George Osborne - is so criticised by those on the left (and sacked before he got chance to see his initiatives through).
But your stat on government spending (in particular) does seem rather dubious to say the least. In fact, no, it must be wrong, or referring to one particular spending area.
The government spends about £800bn a year and of that more than half is spent on Welfare, Health, Education and Defence - just to pick 4. And none of these are London only. So the 95% figure is impossible.
Unless you mean spending on *government* (rather than government spending) - which since parliament and whitehall are in London, would probably make sense.
I'm pleased you are not dismissive of Osborne's Northern Powerhouse efforts - unlike plenty of the marxists on here, who have openly mocked it. Some of the changes Osborne managed to introduce, such as devolving more power to Manchester Council, are to be applauded I think.Osbourne is criticized in regard austerity but that doesn't mean he was wrong in regards the Northern Powerhouse ad it would have been interesting to see how it would have worked out. Andy Burnham has been banging the drum for some time and Mrs Hef has just got a job working with one of the teams(I really do need to show more interest...) so it will be interesting to see from her perspective
On the 95p in the pound spend did see high to me but the German Parliament is also in Berlin so there must be more to it than simply government spend. I'll try and dig it out. I saw it on Sky News this morning but it doesn't seem to be on their website
It was an additional observation, the clue is in the punctuation. The context is indeed a disgracefully dishonest political debate by all the parties but those who are happy to disregard the lies only from those they support should give their heads a wobble.Well you said you hate being lied to, so I was keeping it in the context you set. We’re all being lied to by the tories. I’ll never vote for them but people do. People say they can trust BJ. Astounding really
Correct, they have. I have no other reason not to seriously consider the Lib Dems aside from the glaring fact they have no interest in my opinion on EU membership.Yep, I knew their position on Brexit would make them as an option untenable for you. It was more that some of their other policies for me are pitched at a balanced point between the two.
Think they’ve missed a huge opportunity this time round as a party.
Quite true but I think the point at issue here is not current NHS contracts but the future FTA post Brexit about which there is legitimate concern in terms of increased US involvement in health insurance and the patent drugs market.US firms are ALREADY able to sell products and services to the NHS. In fact they already DO.
So what on earth are people imagining we could be considering? It beggars belief this even gets air time for discussion. There is literally NOTHING to see here and it is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by Labour to try to frighten voters who know no better into voting Labour. It's quite disgusting but not surprising.
It's crystal clear that the people in Labour that keep parroting this claptrap have never done deals or been involvedWTF do you mean "the NHS is on the table" Bob?
Stop talking stupid soundbites and try if you can to talk credibly about what that means. Because there is no meaning which can be applied which is even vaguely credible.
Are we planning on unilaterally spending much more on our drugs for no benefit whatsoever? No. To suggest so is not credible.
Are we planning to selling off parts of the NHS? No, not credible.
Are we planning on allowing US firms to bid for NHS outsourced work? Not relevant - they can already. Nothing new.
So what do you mean by "on the table"? Let's hear it.
What legitimate concerns?Quite true but I think the point at issue here is not current NHS contracts but the future FTA about which there is legitimate concern in terms of increased US involvement in health insurance and the drugs market.
I’m surprised that line isn’t in the manifesto. Mind you, they probably deserve to live healthier longer...Keep the wealthy healthy seems to be the motto....
Of course we do. We don't want poor plebs cluttering up the country do we.I’m surprised that line isn’t in the manifesto. Mind you, they probably deserve to live healthier longer...
Bingo.
Boris told porkies as Labour are doing now.
Easy this politics lark.
I've no idea what a thinking person would imagine we might be considering doing with the US. Emphasis a thinking person.
Why on earth would we agree to pay maybe 10x more for certain drugs than we pay already? It makes no sense. Unless of course it was in return for some other benefit, which meant the overall picture for us was better.
But it is ludicrous to imagine that anyone in the UK would advocate some kind of deal which was to our detrimnent. Why on earth would anyone do that?
There is NOTHING to see here. Literally nothing. The NHS is already severely hampered in its spending. What on earth would be the point of unilaterally making it worse. Anyone suggesting this is either mischief-making, or an idiot. And in many cases on this forum, both.
The difference is that Boris is a proven serial liar and his lies are often exposed very quickly. Labour are making an accusation that I suspect is true but they can not substantiate it beyond circumstantial evidence. Very different things.
The concern is an expanded private healthcare sector dominated by US interests, competing with the state sector and profiteering at its expense. Raw capitalism recognises no limits on what money can buy and medicine and medical services are top of their list of commodities to be sold. They regard our NHS as just another commercial rival and will seek to damage it as such.What legitimate concerns?
Let's get them on the table. What is being suggested? The "the NHS is on the table" soundbite may frighten voters, when in fact there is absolutely bugger all to be concerned about. So if there's actual concerns, it would be rather good if Labour could explain what they are?
Correct, they have. I have no other reason not to seriously consider the Lib Dems aside from the glaring fact they have no interest in my opinion on EU membership.
I don't see Swinson as much of a leader, but I don't vote on personalities, I vote on policies and when a Party gives me the middle finger on an important issue, i'm going to do the same back.
The wealthy are always likely to be healthier whatever the circumstances, the failure to tackle poverty is at the root of that trend.Keep the wealthy healthy seems to be the motto....
Warning. It’s a reasonably long read so you might not be up to it.What legitimate concerns?
Let's get them on the table. What is being suggested? The "the NHS is on the table" soundbite may frighten voters, when in fact there is absolutely bugger all to be concerned about. So if there's actual concerns, it would be rather good if Labour could explain what they are?
Are they really suggesting the US are saying to Boris, "we'd like you to buy more NHS drugs from US firms at 10x the price, and he's saying yes, no problem".
Do Labour campaigners think we are idiots?