Election 2019, Week 1

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

And who are the students being told to vote for?


and will they vote twice.

Does it matter who a student is told to vote for? We are all continuously bombarded with information/propaganda (delete as applicable) on who we should vote for. Once in that polling booth, the decision is your own.

On voting twice, seeing as there was one conviction for double voting out of 32,204,184 votes cast, it doesn't sound like the hugest problem

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Does it matter who a student is told to vote for? We are all continuously bombarded with information/propaganda (delete as applicable) on who we should vote for. Once in that polling booth, the decision is your own.

On voting twice, seeing as there was one conviction for double voting out of 32,204,184 votes cast, it doesn't sound like the hugest problem

Not on your planet obviously.

[denphone]

Labour has suffered a second cyber attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ests-live-news

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

Labour has suffered a second cyber attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ests-live-news

Everyone will be at them now,i think their spending plans may have upset a few people

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Since US companies already have access into the NHS (on the provision that they have a location in the EU, at which point they are as free to bid for contracts as anyone else)

I don't think it's unreasonable to be on guard against access to the NHS being used as leverage in future trade deals.

It's certainly not unreasonable to be aware of the lies that ALL the political parties are prepared to tell. or the U turns they're prepared to make.

I'm going to bookmark your response above, and if you're right send you a bottle of whatever you wish If you're wrong however.... then... well... we're in a whole different world.

Having access is not the same as taking over the NHS. I suppose if it was up to you, we would not be buying any drugs from US companies.

You take your ideology too far, and that attitude does not help NHS patients. I sincerely hope that we will always have at the NHS's disposal the very best drugs from around the world.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Everyone will be at them now,i think their spending plans may have upset a few people

l suspect all political parties will be checking their cyber security in the next few days l would imagine.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:20 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Latest opinion poll in from Survation.

And this is another opinion poll just released from YouGov

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+3)
LAB: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 15% (-2)
BREX: 4% (-6)
GRN: 4% (-)

via
@YouGov
, 11 - 12 Nov
Chgs. w/ 08 Nov.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Having access is not the same as taking over the NHS. I suppose if it was up to you, we would not be buying any drugs from US companies.

You take your ideology too far, and that attitude does not help NHS patients. I sincerely hope that we will always have at the NHS's disposal the very best drugs from around the world.

We all do, however we want the NHS to be able to use it's purchasing power as a massive supplier of healthcare to be able to push down the price of medicines rather than leave it to big pharmaceutical companies to extract supernormal profits from in the absence of competition.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

We all do, however we want the NHS to be able to use it's purchasing power as a massive supplier of healthcare to be able to push down the price of medicines rather than leave it to big pharmaceutical companies to extract supernormal profits from in the absence of competition.

On that, I am sure we all agree.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

We all do, however we want the NHS to be able to use it's purchasing power as a massive supplier of healthcare to be able to push down the price of medicines rather than leave it to big pharmaceutical companies to extract supernormal profits from in the absence of competition.

The lack of competition is because the companies own the exclusive patents. Competition is available for provision of services, but that means private companies doing it.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Seems like universities are catching heat for fulfilling their legal obligation to encourage students to register to vote - https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-students-vote

What a toxic campaign this is...

That's a thoroughly disingenuous piece of reporting, that glosses right over the key fact that the professor actively encouraged students to register to vote both at their home and term-time addresses. Suddenly she's shock-horror-aghast that this has been interpreted as her inciting students to break the law by voting twice (how else would you take it? You don't register in multiple areas so you can vote in person wherever you happen to be staying on polling day, you register at your normal address and apply for a postal or proxy vote if you won't be there in person on the day).

If she really didn't see how her words naturally read, then what is she doing being a professor? Clarity of communication is a basic prerequisite of undergraduate essays which presumably she marks regularly as part of her job.

Obviously it suits the Grauniad which I'm quite sure has been scouring the news wires looking for evidence of intimidation or violence in this campaign, given the fraught few months of politics we have just had. Their sub-heading "Universities have a legal obligation to encourage voter registration. This has prompted an angry reaction in some areas" is an outright lie, as the quoted objections to her Tweet make clear. She was not fulfilling the university's obligation to encourage registration, she was giving, at best, poor advice, and at worst, outright incitement to commit electoral fraud.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The lack of competition is because the companies own the exclusive patents. Competition is available for provision of services, but that means private companies doing it.

I suppose you should get awarded half a point for at least attempting to apply economic theory. Yes, companies have exclusive patents, and rightly so for innovation, however there’s a balancing act and at present it’s clearly too far biased towards big pharma which is where the collective purchasing power of the NHS is useful to offset this.

The competition you describe isn’t going to meaningfully change this for those at the bottom of the supply chain (service users). Indeed, all that would happen is cherry picking.

For the disastrous consequences on the whole check the partial privatisation of the jobcentre role to the work programme providers. Private sector companies focused on the low hanging fruit, leaving those furthest from employment aside for the public sector to pick up once the two years were up. Absolutely disastrous and the subject of a Panorama and Dispatches in the past.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Having access is not the same as taking over the NHS. I suppose if it was up to you, we would not be buying any drugs from US companies.

You take your ideology too far, and that attitude does not help NHS patients. I sincerely hope that we will always have at the NHS's disposal the very best drugs from around the world.

Where have I claimed that? I haven’t, so pipe down

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Where have I claimed that? I haven’t, so pipe down

Old Boy’s perception of reality is somewhat off, I wouldn’t worry about it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I suppose you should get awarded half a point for at least attempting to apply economic theory. Yes, companies have exclusive patents, and rightly so for innovation, however there’s a balancing act and at present it’s clearly too far biased towards big pharma which is where the collective purchasing power of the NHS is useful to offset this.

The competition you describe isn’t going to meaningfully change this for those at the bottom of the supply chain (service users). Indeed, all that would happen is cherry picking.

For the disastrous consequences on the whole check the partial privatisation of the jobcentre role to the work programme providers. Private sector companies focused on the low hanging fruit, leaving those furthest from employment aside for the public sector to pick up once the two years were up. Absolutely disastrous and the subject of a Panorama and Dispatches in the past.

You can't be in favour of competition and against what is referred to as "privatisation"

Link

Spending on non-NHS providers is not a new development. Both the Blair and Brown governments used private providers to increase patient choice and competition as part of their reform programme, and additional capacity provided by the private sector played a role in improving patients’ access to hospital treatment.
...
In many cases the use of private providers to treat NHS patients reflects operational challenges within NHS providers and is a continuation of longstanding practices. Provided that patients receive care that it is timely and free at the point of use, our view is that the provider of a service is less important than the quality and efficiency of the care they deliver. The NHS can also benefit from partnerships and joint ventures with the private sector to deliver some clinical and non-clinical services.

You do realise there was a massive increase in NHS "privatisation" under Labour.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You can't be in favour of competition and against what is referred to as "privatisation"

Link

See this is why you only got the half point for your application of economics earlier.

You want to do more research into natural monopoly or oligopoly. Both occur where market failure takes place for a variety of reasons. These markets should either be in public hands or heavily regulated.

You do realise there was a massive increase in NHS "privatisation" under Labour.

A distraction from my point. I think we can safely say Corbyn and McDonnell shouldn't be tarnished by Blair's introduction of "the market" into the NHS.