General Election - December 12th, 2019

Who will you vote for in the 2019 General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 160 30.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 230 44.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 59 11.4%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 13 2.5%

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 28 5.4%

  • Plaid Cymru/SNP

    Votes: 7 1.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 4.1%
  • Total voters
    518
blueparrot said:
Just the opposite it means the U.S or whichever country/ block is negotiating it has to offer a deal that satisfys everyone. If we are negotiating on our own they only have to offer a deal that satisfys the government of the day, in other words if Johnsons happy we get stuck with whatevers offered.
Click to expand...

no shit Sherlock. You mean countries are run by their elected govt of the day?
 
sd92 said:
Well let’s consider it from this point of view.

The US pharma companies already sell us drugs. Why would there be any negotiations?

There is no reason to have it included in a trade deal, we already buy their drugs.

So frame it this way, why would the pharma companies come to the table?
You are keen to say we would not go and accept a huge increase in costs for drugs, which is a sensible point of view.
But you are not affording the same to the big pharma companies. Why would they come to the table? Do you think they are happy that we pay, generally, more than half the price that the US do for the same drugs?

They will be in a position of strength should brexit go ahead. We NEED a trade deal. The US don’t.

As for the document and the trustworthiness of the tories, there is a line within the document explaining that the govt don’t want ‘NHS’ mentioned too much because the british public are sensitive to it.

We were promised the NHS would not be part of any trade deal yet these documents suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the document, but if there is a line it in as you suggest, they I'd say good, very sensible. People massively overreact and political opponents use it to throw stones. Why invite that?

The fact is we would not agree to any deal which is net worse for the UK, would we. Even if we agreed to pay more like US prices on the 10% of the drugs we buy from the US - and I am not saying we would for a moment - then we'd only do so for some quid pro quo which made doing so worthwhile. So overall, we'd be better off. And if the NHS's drugs bill was to go up by say 10% (a doubling of the US drug costs) then we'd have to bung the NHS more money to pay for it, which would be possible because of the better overall trade deal we had got. If the trade deal is not sufficiently better, we would not agree to it, would we.

So there is absolutely nothing to see here. It's either

(a) All complete bollocks, and represents a historical discussion not even being considered any more, and/or

(b) Perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Shit-stirring and scaremongering from a desperate Corbyn thrashing around on the rack of a -12 point polling gap.
 
blueparrot said:
Just the opposite it means the U.S or whichever country/ block is negotiating it has to offer a deal that satisfys everyone. If we are negotiating on our own they only have to offer a deal that satisfys the government of the day, in other words if Johnsons happy we get stuck with whatevers offered.
Click to expand...
Erm, that's exactly what I just said. The amount of time taken to conclude deals is due to this problem.
This isn't for this thread anyway, if you want to discuss it further go to the brexit thread.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
So why lie about it all? 50000 extra nurses? Lie. 40 new hospitals? Lie. First government in history not to account for inflation when describing healthcare investment. Demand rising at over 6% and annual funding rising at 0.1% (following, on average 4% from the inception of the NHS). Why is it doing that? If I accept your argument about the deficit (I don't, obviously) then why did they not tell everyone that the consequences would be longer waiting lists, longer waits to see a GP, longer waits for cancer treatment (I think you were the one bemoaning the NHS cancer performance, whilst you are constantly advocating reducing budgets)?
Why pretend that hospitals can still meet all their target with a crash in real funding and an increase in demand? If it were your business and someone pretended it were true you'd sack them but if it is government they seem immune from telling the truth and they seem to get a free pass.
Finally, if you are to respond, please do not respond with 'Corbyn is a lying scumbag as well'. I don't care what Corbyn says because he is not part of the government, he hasn't ever been part of the government and he will never be part of the government. What he says matters about as much as what you and I say on this forum.
Click to expand...
I'll put aside your final paragraph and overlook the fact that I am free to call the laying scumbag what on earth I like, but moving on...

Why dress things up as best as possible? Does that REALLY need answering? Because people are not too enamoured when someone says "We're going to need to make cuts and unfortunately that's going to mean waiting lists go up".

When the opponents have an infinite imaginary budget and can promise free Rolls-Royces for every man, woman and child, it's hardly surprising is it that sales people - which is ultiimately what politicians are - try to be optimistic and paint a picture of the best outcome. "Vote for us because it's going to be a bit shit" doesn't have quite the same appeal.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I haven't seen the document, but if there is a line it in as you suggest, they I'd say good, very sensible. People massively overreact and political opponents use it to throw stones. Why invite that?

The fact is we would not agree to any deal which is net worse for the UK, would we. Even if we agreed to pay more like US prices on the 10% of the drugs we buy from the US - and I am not saying we would for a moment - then we'd only do so for some quid pro quo which made doing so worthwhile. So overall, we'd be better off. And if the NHS's drugs bill was to go up by say 10% (a doubling of the US drug costs) then we'd have to bung the NHS more money to pay for it, which would be possible because of the better overall trade deal we had got. If the trade deal is not sufficiently better, we would not agree to it, would we.

So there is absolutely nothing to see here. It's either

(a) All complete bollocks, and represents a historical discussion not even being considered any more, and/or

(b) Perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Shit-stirring and scaremongering from a desperate Corbyn thrashing around on the rack of a -12 point polling gap.
Click to expand...

There seems to be an inherent trust on your part of the tories.

Do you agree that a no deal brexit leaves the UK with virtually no strength?

Who else would we trade with? We have a no deal brexit so the EU is out the question. There is a reason that Trump is pro no deal and it’s not for our benefit.

I’ve just heard a doctor say that there are multiple countries that have negotiated with the US on healthcare and have cone back with worse terms than they went for, he mentioned Japan.

You haven’t mentioned the position that the pharma companies are coming from?
You say we wouldn’t sell ourselves down the drain, so why would they?
The difference is we have no option, they could pull their services, but we need them.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I haven't seen the document, but if there is a line it in as you suggest, they I'd say good, very sensible. People massively overreact and political opponents use it to throw stones. Why invite that?

The fact is we would not agree to any deal which is net worse for the UK, would we. Even if we agreed to pay more like US prices on the 10% of the drugs we buy from the US - and I am not saying we would for a moment - then we'd only do so for some quid pro quo which made doing so worthwhile. So overall, we'd be better off. And if the NHS's drugs bill was to go up by say 10% (a doubling of the US drug costs) then we'd have to bung the NHS more money to pay for it, which would be possible because of the better overall trade deal we had got. If the trade deal is not sufficiently better, we would not agree to it, would we.

So there is absolutely nothing to see here. It's either

(a) All complete bollocks, and represents a historical discussion not even being considered any more, and/or

(b) Perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Shit-stirring and scaremongering from a desperate Corbyn thrashing around on the rack of a -12 point polling gap.
Click to expand...


He has found a year old trade discussion document from when the previous pm was in charge, waved it around like it’s some smoking gun and made himself look an even bigger tit than he was previously.
 
sd92 said:
The un redacted version mentions the chlorine chicken and that the UK shouldn’t worry because they will ‘change the narrative’ around that.
Click to expand...
Quite right too. WTF is the big deal about chlorinated chicken. When was the last time you were in the US (scrub that, you've probably never been outside manchester) and thought yuck, this chicken tastes all chloriney??? More scaremongering bollocks.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
no shit Sherlock. You mean countries are run by their elected govt of the day?
Click to expand...
Seriously, you're ok with a government elected by a minority getting a crap trade deal because we elected them based on their promises of getting a good deal after a referendum where they promised even better deals that everyone now knows were lies.

Because .... democracy.

You know, democracy was meant to be a good thing. What we have now isn't.
 
Vic said:
Seriously, you're ok with a government elected by a minority getting a crap trade deal because we elected them based on their promises of getting a good deal after a referendum where they promised even better deals that everyone now knows were lies.

Because .... democracy.

You know, democracy was meant to be a good thing. What we have now isn't.
Click to expand...

Bit early to concede the election vic, is that door knocking not going well.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Quite right too. WTF is the big deal about chlorinated chicken. When was the last time you were in the US (scrub that, you've probably never been outside manchester) and thought yuck, this chicken tastes all chloriney??? More scaremongering bollocks.
Click to expand...

Haha I am sitting in Edinburgh right now amigo.
Last time I was there was 2009 and that is exactly what I thought.

No I jest.
I am not sure what the issue is on chlorinated chicken, the more worrying thing for me is the fact they say they would change the rhetoric about it. And even more worryingly is that you are saying that is a good thing. Why would you trust big companies changing the rhetoric to sell their products?

Strikes me like the tobacco companies that said smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Were you supportive of that?

Another worrying part is they want to scrap the health safety labels. Do you agree with that? And if so, why?
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
as I have said before they only swim in saltwater pools
Click to expand...
"CHLORINE-WASHED CHICKEN: WHAT IS CHLORINATED CHICKEN? IS CHLORINE-WASHED CHICKEN SAFE TO EAT?
Chlorinated chicken– or chlorine-washed chicken – simply means that chicken was rinsed with chlorinated water; chlorine is not present in the meat. Just as chlorine helps make drinking water safe, it can help remove potentially harmful bacteria from raw chicken.

Although it has been proven safe, most chicken processing plants have moved away from the use of chlorine as a food safety application during the production process. The National Chicken Council in the United States would estimate that chlorine is used in some rinses and sprays in only about 10% of processing plants in the U.S. Most of the chlorine that is used in the industry is used for cleaning and sanitizing processing equipment.

However, numerous studies and scientific research have confirmed that the use of chlorinated water to chill and clean chicken is safe and effective. Chlorine-washed chicken does not pose any human health concerns and it is not present in the final product.

All chicken produced in the United States is closely monitored and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)."

OH MY WORD, WHAT A SCANDAL????!!!!
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
Matter of opinion if it's bad or not.
Click to expand...
So on a philosophical question as to whether bad things are preferable to good things, you think it's a matter of opinion whether the bad things really are bad.


I see how you'd support an amoral prime minister.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Quite right too. WTF is the big deal about chlorinated chicken. When was the last time you were in the US (scrub that, you've probably never been outside manchester) and thought yuck, this chicken tastes all chloriney??? More scaremongering bollocks.
Click to expand...
The narrative around chlorinated chicken certainly does need to be changed.

People still think you'd be ingesting harmful chemicals, when nothing could be further from the truth. For example;

"In 2005 the European Food Safety Authority said that "exposure to chlorite residues arising from treated poultry carcasses would be of no safety concern". Chlorine-rinsed bagged salads are common in the UK and other countries in the EU."

The issue is about the standards which required the chlorine wash, but it's common practice in the US even if the standards are exceptionally high. I'd sooner trust and have fewer health concerns about US chlorinated chicken than the stuff sold on the UK high street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top