The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[banjodeano 31]

1 hour ago, andyofborg said:

what change did he offer which was different to the offering from the very left over the last 40 years?

A people's Bank? He wanted to produce our own medicines instead of paying big pharma companies huge mark ups, I'm pretty sure he would have made multi national companies start to pay the tax they owe

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 minute ago, banjodeano said:

A people's Bank? He wanted to produce our own medicines instead of paying big pharma companies huge mark ups, I'm pretty sure he would have made multi national companies start to pay the tax they owe

Medicine for what?  Do you think he knows what a patent is?

 

Anyway, this isn’t a thread about why Labour lost.

[banjodeano 31]

27 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

Medicine for what?  Do you think he knows what a patent is?

 

Anyway, this isn’t a thread about why Labour lost.

So why did you just ask me a question if you dont want to talk about labour?

in this article it says "The use of compulsory licensing would allow the NHS to gain access to generic versions of expensive drugs soon after a Labour government came to power, but the establishment of a state-funded generic drug manufacturer would not come until the end of the party's first five-year term in office."

It also goes on to say "Aides later said that the policy would deliver savings to the NHS by reducing the bill for drugs like Orkambi, which a Labour source said was priced at £104,000 a year per patient."......it would mean huge savings for the NHS, whats not to like??

ok, i will refrain from any more posts about Labour, lets concentrate on this shambles  of a government

[alchresearch 214]

11 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

He was an incompetent, stubborn, loser whose antics and opinions frequently alienated swathes of people. As time went on he became increasingly toxic and so blinded by his own ego and union puppetmasters that he showed himself up on numerous occasions to the people who matter ie the voters. 

If only he'd taken heed at this back in 2016, I think we would have had a Labour government by now.

 

Labour MPs pass no-confidence motion in Jeremy Corbyn

A motion of no confidence in Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been passed by the party's MPs.

The 172-40 vote, which is not binding, follows resignations from the shadow cabinet and calls on Mr Corbyn to quit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458

[Arnold_Lane 0]

13 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

So why did you just ask me a question if you dont want to talk about labour?

in this article it says "The use of compulsory licensing would allow the NHS to gain access to generic versions of expensive drugs soon after a Labour government came to power, but the establishment of a state-funded generic drug manufacturer would not come until the end of the party's first five-year term in office."

It also goes on to say "Aides later said that the policy would deliver savings to the NHS by reducing the bill for drugs like Orkambi, which a Labour source said was priced at £104,000 a year per patient."......it would mean huge savings for the NHS, whats not to like??

ok, i will refrain from any more posts about Labour, lets concentrate on this shambles  of a government

It would be helpful if you linked to the article you quote so we can see what counter-arguments you - or the author - omit.
 

However, articles that present both sides are not hard to find.
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-49829525

 

It’s very complex.  What’s “not to like” is related to this bit:
 

“Latest figures show annual research-and-development spending by pharmaceutical companies is £4.3bn, while public-funded bodies spend £2.4bn and medical research charities £1.3bn.”

 

Hence my question - which was rhetorical by the way.  That means I wasn’t expecting an answer.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[banjodeano 31]

8 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

It would be helpful if you linked to the article you quote so we can see what counter-arguments you - or the author - omit.
 

However, articles that present both sides are not hard to find.
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-49829525

 

It’s very complex.  What’s “not to like” is related to this bit:
 

“Latest figures show annual research-and-development spending by pharmaceutical companies is £4.3bn, while public-funded bodies spend £2.4bn and medical research charities £1.3bn.”

 

Hence my question - which was rhetorical by the way.  That means I wasn’t expecting an answer.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

It would be helpful if you linked to the article you quote so we can see what counter-arguments you - or the author - omit.
 

However, articles that present both sides are not hard to find.
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-49829525

 

It’s very complex.  What’s “not to like” is related to this bit:
 

“Latest figures show annual research-and-development spending by pharmaceutical companies is £4.3bn, while public-funded bodies spend £2.4bn and medical research charities £1.3bn.”

 

Hence my question - which was rhetorical by the way.  That means I wasn’t expecting an answer.

 

 

sorry i forgot the link...

this was the link

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-state-drug-company-labour-medicine-cheap-conference-a9118851.html

[Arnold_Lane 0]

2 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

 

sorry i forgot the link...

this was the link

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-state-drug-company-labour-medicine-cheap-conference-a9118851.html

From the same:

 

Kate Andrews, associate director of the free-market thinktank the Institute for Economic Affairs, said: "Jeremy Corbyn’s call for compulsory licensing for medication puts at risk a patent system that encourages innovation and revolutions in medicine, which patients in the UK and across the world benefit from daily.

 

"Removing all profit motive from healthcare is likely to worsen the problems that already exist in the NHS: rationing, limited patient choice, and the lack of innovation in the market for drugs and new treatment."

 

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Arnold_Lane 0]

Just now, CaptainSwing said:

Well she would, wouldn't she?

 

Anyway, last time I checked this was supposed to be a thread about the Conservative Party.

That’s not an argument, it’s ad hominem.  
 

[nikki-red 307]

Back on topic please.

[Moistened 5]

16 hours ago, banjodeano said:

in the video...he said the left offered the same old same old...that is quite untrue, Corbyn offered real change, thats why he scared the establishment, they didnt want real change, they wanted the same old same old.....thats why there was a campaign to remove him,  and now  he has gone we have Starmer....the same old same old....also in the video he talks about not communicating with people, that is exactly what Corbyn and the movement did, they spread the word, not talked down and ridiculed people, but communicated...

In your opinion what Corbyn represented was positive, however obviously for a large percentage of the population it wasn't. I know a handful of people who have voted Labour their entire lives, but absolutely wouldn't vote for them whilst Corbyn was in charge. Clearly this was widespread, as shown by the embarrassing, yet predictable loss in the election. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Moistened

[banjodeano 31]

41 minutes ago, Moistened said:

In your opinion what Corbyn represented was positive, however obviously for a large percentage of the population it wasn't. I know a handful of people who have voted Labour their entire lives, but absolutely wouldn't vote for them whilst Corbyn was in charge. Clearly this was widespread, as shown by the embarrassing, yet predictable loss in the election. 

But when we look at the depressing state of the current government, one has to ask oneself if they were not fooled by the media driven anti Corbyn hate campaign and what are their  thoughts on the current shoddy state of affairs, Corbyn would have done a far better job...but anyway, this is the Tory thread, pleas keep it on track..if you want to spout your anti Corbyn message do it on the labour party thread..

4 hours ago, nikki-red said:

Back on topic please.

As above

[Moistened 5]

5 hours ago, banjodeano said:

But when we look at the depressing state of the current government, one has to ask oneself if they were not fooled by the media driven anti Corbyn hate campaign and what are their  thoughts on the current shoddy state of affairs, Corbyn would have done a far better job...but anyway, this is the Tory thread, pleas keep it on track..if you want to spout your anti Corbyn message do it on the labour party thread..

As above

I voted for Corbyn, I'm just stating what I've observed. I agree, a Corbyn led government would likely have done a much better job. This doesn't change the fact that his campaign was a disaster and failed spectacularly. 

 

Anyway, right, back to the Tories! 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Moistened