Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
That's different, though, isn't it? You're saying you don't want to vote Labour because you feel Corbyn hasn't been active on racism, and by implication that overrides other considerations, such as getting a new referendum on Brexit. My point related to voters whose first priority was stopping Brexit. They are being (IMO deliberately) misled by LibDems arguing that anti-Tory tactical voters should support them in seats that Labour holds or seats like Uxbridge where the LibDems obviously aren't going to win. I don't know Bedford at all, but that's certainly happening in Portsmouth South.
If the LibDem argument was "vote for us regardless because we're the best party" or even "vote for us because our rivals are scum", that'd be normal. But they're muddying the tactical vote position in the pursuit of party interest, and that's a gift to Johnson.
We have the converse here in Surrey SW. We are carefully NOT saying that people should vote Labour for tactical reasons, because it'd be dodgy, even though we came ahead of the LibDems last time. I don't really think any party is going to put Hunt's majority at risk, so we may as well all vote for who we prefer.
It's not the monopoly purchasing power which would be impacted really. It is the ability to agree prices in secrecy. Note the key term that the Trump administration is using: transparency.
Pharmaceuticals are a global product. NICE/NHS England can negotiate good deals (effectively create 'price discrimination' in our favour) because:
1) NICE has a rigorous and world-renowned processes for evaluating new pharmaceuticals based on cost-effectiveness (cost versus benefit (measured in QALYs)) 2) NHS England can negotiate prices with pharma companies in secret based on 1 - the effective cap being the cost-effectiveness threshold that NICE use (which is £20-30k per quality adjusted life-year generated).
However,if 2 fails due to a demand for 'transparency' then pharma will not give discounts to the UK anymore because every other country would demand the same. So prices are higher here to match the non-value based prices paid elsewhere.
End result: pay A LOT more for the same or don't get access to the drugs.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's a slightly simplistic way to look at it. Given the marginal cost of most non-biological drugs is usually very low indeed, pharmaceutical companies make very good profits on their ex US sales too - just not some of the excess profits they can achieve in the US. And given the likely enormous growth in new markets - notably India and China - over the next decade, the returns on drug development are unlikely to collapse even if the US manage to sort out their own system (fairly likely, should Trump get ejected next year).
From the world of anecdotes, I had an interesting conversation with my mum yesterday. Traditionally Tory voter, occasionally UKIP, likely Brexit Party in the Euros (she never reveals her vote, my feeling from her comments, which are quite detailed). She hopes that the MPs who blocked Brexit will get kicked out - I asked whether she therefore wanted Priti Patel (my brother's MP) kicked out as she voted three times against Brexit. Confused silence, "Isn't she for Brexit"? She has a dim view of her own MP, Vicky Ford, as "she's a remainer, isn't she", despite me pointing out that she voted for Brexit three times in the meaningful votes.
I don't know whether she'll vote Conservative or for whoever the Brexit party put up, but it appears that simply voting or Brexit repeatedly may not be enough for some Brexit supporting voters. She's also no fan of Johnson, but more for personal dislike than policies.
pb.com: the "mum anecdote" years......
The QT audience last night, albeit I listened only to the first 20 mins, seemed untypically BBC Brexity.
I do think if the election were today Labour will get a battering in the Midlands. It's a hard working, patriotic and Brexity area - the antithetis of what Labour stand for. I think there are Wolverhampton and West Bromwich seats in play where a double figure swing is possible if Corbyn doesn't smash it on the campaign trail.
West Brom, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Brum - they may well end up with Tory MPs next month.
In a pleasing historical echo, the West Midlands was also the part of the country most keen on imperial preference.
Farage wants to be British Ambassador to Washington. My guess is that's the deal but not one we'll discover until the nightmare of a Johnson majority govenment becomes a reality
No, Boris will make Ashcroft US Ambassador most likely
A Johnson administration gets more attractive by the minute!
That said there are places such as the SW where based on history and the euros the LDs really do have a better shot despite being a distant third.
There is no evidence that such is the case. I think in many seats in the S and SW, it is very unclear who you should vote for tactically..........
[edit]
This is why I think tactical voting is likely to be very inefficient in the GE.
Spot on. The fact that there is a discussion going on here about how a tactical vote should be cast is supporting evidence of that.
I have no doubt that many Remainers will want to vote tactically to stop the Conservatives. The problem is that the LDs are in general starting from so far back that not everyone will buy into the idea that a party starting from a poor 3rd place can come through, although others will. Given that split opinion, the result in many places could be Labour and LDs on roughly equal shares of the vote, leaving the Conservatives to scrape home.
Remember also that the LDs have another motive as well. They will be content with an inefficient tactical vote in 2019 if it delivers a large number of 2nd places that move them into more obvious contention to challenge for a seat in future. That's why I think they are putting a lot of effort into seats they cannot realistically win in 2019. In the past the LDs have won Conservative seats over a series of 2 or 3 elections, in which they first come from nowhere to a credible 3rd place, then overtake Labour into 2nd place, then really put the tactical vote squeeze on to get over the line.
It is quite conceivable that this process could be accelerated and that we will be looking at another GE in 2020, with the 2019 result then serving as the tactical voting baseline, in which the tactical voting choices for Remainers will be more obvious.
If it remains obvious that Labour is going backwards and the LibDems forwards, it should be easy - vote Labour in Labour held seats (assuming the MP is a remainer) and vote LibDem/Remain Alliance everywhere else (ex Scotland)
No it's not easy. Extrapolating national polling swings onto diverse individual constituencies doesn't work. Two examples for starters. People who thought Labour had no chance in 2017 in their constituency and who didn't consider casting a tactical vote could change their vote in the light of a 2017 result in which Labour came far closer to beating the Conservatives than expected. The Conservatives may also be going backwards in strong Remain voting areas while improving in strong Leave voting areas, and won't be regarding their seats in the former as immune from close Labour challengers.
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme could go very badly for Labour. Older than average voters in those seats I believe.
I think we might all be fighting the last war and a bit too influenced by 2017. I do wonder if it’s all a bit more simple this time and a Tory majority very likely for all those reasons; with the probability strengthened further by a “Labour might win this, look at what happened last time” narrative.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme could go very badly for Labour. Older than average voters in those seats I believe.
Newcastle under Lyme has a lot of student votes from Keele too.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
There is no proper market in the US system. The NHS uses its buying power to drive down prices as any sensibe organisation in a marketplace should - in the US Medicare etc are legally forbidden from doing the same. That is not a free market restriction.
The size of the NHS market is helpful to getting a better price but not the primary reason. The main reason is the cost-effectiveness methods used by NICE combined with the ability for price discrimination globally which requires secrecy.
We have a process where we set a cap currently and we can walk away without the drug if the price is too high that it blows the cost-effectiveness. We do, often. But a deal is often agreed because the price can be reduced in secrecy and Pharma is happier to come down to open up the market rather than have nothing at all.
Remove the secrecy, then the price is now a global price and there is no way pharma will budge for us when we represent less than 5% of global sales. The NHS loses its credible walking away strategy. We pay more or we don't get it.
I agree it would be ludicrous for any government to rip up this system. It would be the first red line in any negotiation for me.
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Its interesting how similar the pattern is for the SNP as Labour. Are Unionists a dying breed or those with the benefit of experience? Only time will tell.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
And don't lose sight of the fact that drug costs are only a small proportion of US healthcare spending. Probably the easiest bit of the tangle to unsnarl, though - and certainly the easiest to describe and compare, which is why they get so much attention.
From the world of anecdotes, I had an interesting conversation with my mum yesterday. Traditionally Tory voter, occasionally UKIP, likely Brexit Party in the Euros (she never reveals her vote, my feeling from her comments, which are quite detailed). She hopes that the MPs who blocked Brexit will get kicked out - I asked whether she therefore wanted Priti Patel (my brother's MP) kicked out as she voted three times against Brexit. Confused silence, "Isn't she for Brexit"? She has a dim view of her own MP, Vicky Ford, as "she's a remainer, isn't she", despite me pointing out that she voted for Brexit three times in the meaningful votes.
I don't know whether she'll vote Conservative or for whoever the Brexit party put up, but it appears that simply voting or Brexit repeatedly may not be enough for some Brexit supporting voters. She's also no fan of Johnson, but more for personal dislike than policies.
Voting against Remainer May's deal was never voting against Brexit and this lie is not going to convince anyone. Patel voted for us to leave the EU in March.
Had May's deal passed, Brexit would have happened by now.
Big deal. The reason we are still in the EU is not because May's deal didn't pass, it is because MPs voted to extend Article 50.
May voted to extend Article 50 in March, Patel did not.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
There is no proper market in the US system. The NHS uses its buying power to drive down prices as any sensibe organisation in a marketplace should - in the US Medicare etc are legally forbidden from doing the same. That is not a free market restriction.
It's even more bonkers, some parts of US government healthcare can negotiate drugs prices but other parts can't. So Veteran Affai s can negotiate on price but Medicare cannot.
Medicare is the biggest chunk of spending of course.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
There is no proper market in the US system. The NHS uses its buying power to drive down prices as any sensibe organisation in a marketplace should - in the US Medicare etc are legally forbidden from doing the same. That is not a free market restriction.
Not only that, but they also spend billions of dollars on direct-to-consumer marketing, and billions more on marketing to prescribing doctors (lots of ‘conferences’ in sunny places), none of which occur elsewhere. Oh, and hundreds of millions in ‘donations’ to Congresscritters, to keep all the of the above in place.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
Absolutely but that’s part of what I mean. They are right to have a grievance that they pay more for development than they should do, because many other countries (like us) drive the harder bargain that can be driven by (in their language) a “single payer“. But it is the least of their problems. Another big issue for them is patients being able to have expensive scans and other procedures on demand because of the lack of a proper system of primary care to send them off home (and the different expectations of something you have paid for directly). The list goes on.
How any rational American can actually defend where they have got to is beyond me. It’s not even operating like a market - it’s a bizarre system of limitless demand, fuelling unnecessary supply and utterly failing to result in an efficient use of capital or labour.
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
The cratering of the Labour support in the 40-49 bracket is how the Tories have moved the crossover down: they are less popular than before, but less repugnant than Labour.
Conclusion: 1 - FPTP is really shit. It can end up with the incredibly unpopular governments claiming democratic mandates (which is why Conservatives and Labour will never let it go) 2 - The flip side of the above is that when popularity gets hollowed out enough, you can lose everything really suddenly. (See Scottish Labour for pointers)
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
There is no proper market in the US system. The NHS uses its buying power to drive down prices as any sensibe organisation in a marketplace should - in the US Medicare etc are legally forbidden from doing the same. That is not a free market restriction.
The size of the NHS market is helpful to getting a better price but not the primary reason. The main reason is the cost-effectiveness methods used by NICE combined with the ability for price discrimination globally which requires secrecy.
We have a process where we set a cap currently and we can walk away without the drug if the price is too high that it blows the cost-effectiveness. We do, often. But a deal is often agreed because the price can be reduced in secrecy and Pharma is happier to come down to open up the market rather than have nothing at all.
Remove the secrecy, then the price is now a global price and there is no way pharma will budge for us when we represent less than 5% of global sales. The NHS loses its credible walking away strategy. We pay more or we don't get it.
I agree it would be ludicrous for any government to rip up this system. It would be the first red line in any negotiation for me.
It will be the first red line in any governments negotiations. No government can afford to end the system, if they do they will be picking up the bill and the Treasury will not permit that. Sometimes people just don't think things through and imagine all sorts of bizarre scenarios without thinking through "why on Earth would anyone ever agree to this? Nobody would not even my opponents."
From the world of anecdotes, I had an interesting conversation with my mum yesterday. Traditionally Tory voter, occasionally UKIP, likely Brexit Party in the Euros (she never reveals her vote, my feeling from her comments, which are quite detailed). She hopes that the MPs who blocked Brexit will get kicked out - I asked whether she therefore wanted Priti Patel (my brother's MP) kicked out as she voted three times against Brexit. Confused silence, "Isn't she for Brexit"? She has a dim view of her own MP, Vicky Ford, as "she's a remainer, isn't she", despite me pointing out that she voted for Brexit three times in the meaningful votes.
I don't know whether she'll vote Conservative or for whoever the Brexit party put up, but it appears that simply voting or Brexit repeatedly may not be enough for some Brexit supporting voters. She's also no fan of Johnson, but more for personal dislike than policies.
pb.com: the "mum anecdote" years......
The QT audience last night, albeit I listened only to the first 20 mins, seemed untypically BBC Brexity.
I do think if the election were today Labour will get a battering in the Midlands. It's a hard working, patriotic and Brexity area - the antithetis of what Labour stand for. I think there are Wolverhampton and West Bromwich seats in play where a double figure swing is possible if Corbyn doesn't smash it on the campaign trail.
West Brom, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Brum - they may well end up with Tory MPs next month.
However, writing from a marginal Wolverhampton constituency, I am struck by the complete lack of Conservative election material coming through my letterbox to date, with only 40 something days to go. The Tory candidate has got his name in the paper plenty of times, but their ground game for printed material seems to have gone awol.
By contrast, in the 12 months of the run up to the 2015 election we were absolutely inundated with printed material from the Conservatives. I think it was mainly generated by the national campaign, so I presume that our experience is not atypical. The parallel is with 2017 when nothing happened until the election started, but in 2019 you could at least see the election coming from a mile off.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
That's different, though, isn't it? You're saying you don't want to vote Labour because you feel Corbyn hasn't been active on racism, and by implication that overrides other considerations, such as getting a new referendum on Brexit. My point related to voters whose first priority was stopping Brexit. They are being (IMO deliberately) misled by LibDems arguing that anti-Tory tactical voters should support them in seats that Labour holds or seats like Uxbridge where the LibDems obviously aren't going to win. I don't know Bedford at all, but that's certainly happening in Portsmouth South.
If the LibDem argument was "vote for us regardless because we're the best party" or even "vote for us because our rivals are scum", that'd be normal. But they're muddying the tactical vote position in the pursuit of party interest, and that's a gift to Johnson.
We have the converse here in Surrey SW. We are carefully NOT saying that people should vote Labour for tactical reasons, because it'd be dodgy, even though we came ahead of the LibDems last time. I don't really think any party is going to put Hunt's majority at risk, so we may as well all vote for who we prefer.
Carefully omitting that Labour were third last time behind NHAP, I see.
Do you know if they are they standing again, or have they given up now that Hunt is on the backbenches?
Farage wants to be British Ambassador to Washington. My guess is that's the deal but not one we'll discover until the nightmare of a Johnson majority govenment becomes a reality
I would normally dismiss this kind of thing. Who would want Farage in any position of responsibility? But, actually, it would be defensible, as it might be the one way of securing a trade deal with Trump. And that would be in the national interest. Plays to everyone's interests.
Labouir vote down 32% at Bromsgrove yesterday fell from 1st place to 4rth. Is this a harbinger of what might be coming?
Labour were down 20% in the NE Somerset constituency poll from 34% to 14%. There's a lot of evidence mounting, from various different sources, that the Labour vote is falling away pretty significantly.
The LDs now have 21 MPs with the defection of Antoinette Sandbach.
Will they overtake the SNP as 3rd party after the election? I think its unlikely but definitely possible, especially if they are smart enough to focus their fire on the carcass that is Labour.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
There is no proper market in the US system. The NHS uses its buying power to drive down prices as any sensibe organisation in a marketplace should - in the US Medicare etc are legally forbidden from doing the same. That is not a free market restriction.
The size of the NHS market is helpful to getting a better price but not the primary reason. The main reason is the cost-effectiveness methods used by NICE combined with the ability for price discrimination globally which requires secrecy.
We have a process where we set a cap currently and we can walk away without the drug if the price is too high that it blows the cost-effectiveness. We do, often. But a deal is often agreed because the price can be reduced in secrecy and Pharma is happier to come down to open up the market rather than have nothing at all.
Remove the secrecy, then the price is now a global price and there is no way pharma will budge for us when we represent less than 5% of global sales. The NHS loses its credible walking away strategy. We pay more or we don't get it.
I agree it would be ludicrous for any government to rip up this system. It would be the first red line in any negotiation for me.
It will be the first red line in any governments negotiations. No government can afford to end the system, if they do they will be picking up the bill and the Treasury will not permit that. Sometimes people just don't think things through and imagine all sorts of bizarre scenarios without thinking through "why on Earth would anyone ever agree to this? Nobody would not even my opponents."
Sometimes scare stories are literally just that.
I agree it is quite unlikely and it would be an act of a reckless and wantonly stupid government but I can see a scenario where it might happen.
A government that is reeling from having left the EU with no deal might strike a trade deal in record time with the US and hand wave this away. What a disaster that would be.
From the world of anecdotes, I had an interesting conversation with my mum yesterday. Traditionally Tory voter, occasionally UKIP, likely Brexit Party in the Euros (she never reveals her vote, my feeling from her comments, which are quite detailed). She hopes that the MPs who blocked Brexit will get kicked out - I asked whether she therefore wanted Priti Patel (my brother's MP) kicked out as she voted three times against Brexit. Confused silence, "Isn't she for Brexit"? She has a dim view of her own MP, Vicky Ford, as "she's a remainer, isn't she", despite me pointing out that she voted for Brexit three times in the meaningful votes.
I don't know whether she'll vote Conservative or for whoever the Brexit party put up, but it appears that simply voting or Brexit repeatedly may not be enough for some Brexit supporting voters. She's also no fan of Johnson, but more for personal dislike than policies.
pb.com: the "mum anecdote" years......
The QT audience last night, albeit I listened only to the first 20 mins, seemed untypically BBC Brexity.
I do think if the election were today Labour will get a battering in the Midlands. It's a hard working, patriotic and Brexity area - the antithetis of what Labour stand for. I think there are Wolverhampton and West Bromwich seats in play where a double figure swing is possible if Corbyn doesn't smash it on the campaign trail.
West Brom, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Brum - they may well end up with Tory MPs next month.
Coventry South I think they have a great chance, Lab just selected some hardened socialist last night to replace Jim Cunningham. 7k majority with no incumbancy bounce. Plus Boris should play quite well in the W Mids, Andy Street's performance as Mayor will certainly help regards people becoming used to having Conservatives in charge.
Cov NW too, with Robinson standing down after decades. 8,500 majority doesn't look daunting now.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
Carefully omitting that Labour were third last time behind NHAP, I see.
Do you know if they are they standing again, or have they given up now that Hunt is on the backbenches?
No, they're not standing - I'm not sure they even still exist, but they've not done anything locally for the last couple of years, and a colleague is in personal touch with their candidate last time who confirms she's not standing. It was always 100% a health thing.
The local Labour Party was temporarily suspended in 2017 because three prominent Labour people supported her - she split the Labour vote big time, without coming close to Hunt. The LibDems had problems too which are now ancient history and I won't repeat here.
I understand the arguments for tactical voting (and quietly tolerated a vote swap operation with Norman Lamb back in the day), but only in seats where realistically someone clearly has a chance of beating the Tories.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
Absolutely but that’s part of what I mean. They are right to have a grievance that they pay more for development than they should do, because many other countries (like us) drive the harder bargain that can be driven by (in their language) a “single payer“. But it is the least of their problems. Another big issue for them is patients being able to have expensive scans and other procedures on demand because of the lack of a proper system of primary care to send them off home (and the different expectations of something you have paid for directly). The list goes on.
How any rational American can actually defend where they have got to is beyond me. It’s not even operating like a market - it’s a bizarre system of limitless demand, fuelling unnecessary supply and utterly failing to result in an efficient use of capital or labour.
It's a total outlier compared to every other advanced nation. One can only assume that relentless propaganda over many decades stoking up fears of the bogeyman is the only thing that has convinced the average American to put up with it for so long.
Carefully omitting that Labour were third last time behind NHAP, I see.
Do you know if they are they standing again, or have they given up now that Hunt is on the backbenches?
No, they're not standing - I'm not sure they even still exist, but they've not done anything locally for the last couple of years, and a colleague is in personal touch with their candidate last time who confirms she's not standing. It was always 100% a health thing.
The local Labour Party was temporarily suspended in 2017 because three prominent Labour people supported her - she split the Labour vote big time, without coming close to Hunt. The LibDems had problems too which are now ancient history and I won't repeat here.
I understand the arguments for tactical voting (and quietly tolerated a vote swap operation with Norman Lamb back in the day), but only in seats where realistically someone clearly has a chance of beating the Tories.
What's your take on the JLM, Nick? What do they know that you don't, or what do you know that they don't?
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
Mike, Salve your conscience with a vote swap - I prefer Lib Dem but our Lab MP in a marginal is a sound remainer. Once I can find a couple of Lab supporters in a seat where Lib Dems are in the running I will do a swap.
With our electoral system you unfortunately have to hold the candle to the devil. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just safely vote for who we wanted!
Vote swapping is taken off the menu when it still involves voting for the anti-semite Corbyn.
Not when the choice in my constituency is between a rabid Brexiteer and a sound remainer who is is good constituency MP.
also thing the Corbyn-demon will have less impact this time as he's likely to be gone by Christmas
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
Absolutely but that’s part of what I mean. They are right to have a grievance that they pay more for development than they should do, because many other countries (like us) drive the harder bargain that can be driven by (in their language) a “single payer“. But it is the least of their problems. Another big issue for them is patients being able to have expensive scans and other procedures on demand because of the lack of a proper system of primary care to send them off home (and the different expectations of something you have paid for directly). The list goes on.
How any rational American can actually defend where they have got to is beyond me. It’s not even operating like a market - it’s a bizarre system of limitless demand, fuelling unnecessary supply and utterly failing to result in an efficient use of capital or labour.
Do they pay more for development though?
Or do they pay more for TV adverts, donations to Congressmen, and overall corruption within their totally failed healthcare system? Don't forget the drug companies here don't pay a penny to MPs, don't pay a penny to take doctors on holidays, don't pay a penny on TV advertising so all we are paying for is the drugs themselves.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
That's different, though, isn't it? You're saying you don't want to vote Labour because you feel Corbyn hasn't been active on racism, and by implication that overrides other considerations, such as getting a new referendum on Brexit. My point related to voters whose first priority was stopping Brexit. They are being (IMO deliberately) misled by LibDems arguing that anti-Tory tactical voters should support them in seats that Labour holds or seats like Uxbridge where the LibDems obviously aren't going to win. I don't know Bedford at all, but that's certainly happening in Portsmouth South.
If the LibDem argument was "vote for us regardless because we're the best party" or even "vote for us because our rivals are scum", that'd be normal. But they're muddying the tactical vote position in the pursuit of party interest, and that's a gift to Johnson.
We have the converse here in Surrey SW. We are carefully NOT saying that people should vote Labour for tactical reasons, because it'd be dodgy, even though we came ahead of the LibDems last time. I don't really think any party is going to put Hunt's majority at risk, so we may as well all vote for who we prefer.
Carefully omitting that Labour were third last time behind NHAP, I see.
Do you know if they are they standing again, or have they given up now that Hunt is on the backbenches?
Irrespective of the above, Gina Miller recommends voting Lib Dem in SW Surrey.
Interestingly, I tried East Devon, and she seems to think Hugo Swire has lost his seat to Claire Wright (Independent) at some point. Oops.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
Mike, Salve your conscience with a vote swap - I prefer Lib Dem but our Lab MP in a marginal is a sound remainer. Once I can find a couple of Lab supporters in a seat where Lib Dems are in the running I will do a swap.
With our electoral system you unfortunately have to hold the candle to the devil. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just safely vote for who we wanted!
Vote swapping is taken off the menu when it still involves voting for the anti-semite Corbyn.
Not when the choice in my constituency is between a rabid Brexiteer and a sound remainer who is is good constituency MP.
also thing the Corbyn-demon will have less impact this time as he's likely to be gone by Christmas
It will be the first red line in any governments negotiations. No government can afford to end the system, if they do they will be picking up the bill and the Treasury will not permit that. Sometimes people just don't think things through and imagine all sorts of bizarre scenarios without thinking through "why on Earth would anyone ever agree to this? Nobody would not even my opponents."
Sometimes scare stories are literally just that.
FWIW I agree this is likely just a scare story, albeit a politically powerful one.
However, rationally it should be up for discussion. If the benefits of a US trade deal were great enough* (in terms of tax receipts from growth) that they would more than offset increasing costs from (e.g.) changing secrecy around the prices NHS pays for pharma then it would make economic sense to do the deal. Of course, growth forecasts are uncertain, so it would have to be a very clear benefit and I think it would be politically impossible. But all trade deals are trade-offs, there will be bits good for each party to the deal and bits bad to each party to the deal.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
Mike, Salve your conscience with a vote swap - I prefer Lib Dem but our Lab MP in a marginal is a sound remainer. Once I can find a couple of Lab supporters in a seat where Lib Dems are in the running I will do a swap.
With our electoral system you unfortunately have to hold the candle to the devil. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just safely vote for who we wanted!
Vote swapping is taken off the menu when it still involves voting for the anti-semite Corbyn.
Not when the choice in my constituency is between a rabid Brexiteer and a sound remainer who is is good constituency MP.
also thing the Corbyn-demon will have less impact this time as he's likely to be gone by Christmas
If he's not gone it will be because he's Prime Minister. Only a few seats need to change hands now and Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister come Christmas.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
That's different, though, isn't it? You're saying you don't want to vote Labour because you feel Corbyn hasn't been active on racism, and by implication that overrides other considerations, such as getting a new referendum on Brexit. My point related to voters whose first priority was stopping Brexit. They are being (IMO deliberately) misled by LibDems arguing that anti-Tory tactical voters should support them in seats that Labour holds or seats like Uxbridge where the LibDems obviously aren't going to win. I don't know Bedford at all, but that's certainly happening in Portsmouth South.
If the LibDem argument was "vote for us regardless because we're the best party" or even "vote for us because our rivals are scum", that'd be normal. But they're muddying the tactical vote position in the pursuit of party interest, and that's a gift to Johnson.
We have the converse here in Surrey SW. We are carefully NOT saying that people should vote Labour for tactical reasons, because it'd be dodgy, even though we came ahead of the LibDems last time. I don't really think any party is going to put Hunt's majority at risk, so we may as well all vote for who we prefer.
Interestingly one of the local rags in Guildford highlights Surrey SW as one of the Surrey seats to watch, and it is not talking about a Labour surge. I tend to agree that Hunt is safe, but any chance of taking on the Tories in their seats in Surrey is almost exclusively confined to the LDs. Guildford looks a likely LD win, but the most interesting may be Mole Valley, where the Conservatives had a meltdown in May and where the local plans have been a disaster. I doubt a 24000 majority will disappear, but a reduction to under 10000 or even 5000 is likely.
I agree it is quite unlikely and it would be an act of a reckless and wantonly stupid government but I can see a scenario where it might happen.
A government that is reeling from having left the EU with no deal might strike a trade deal in record time with the US and hand wave this away. What a disaster that would be.
Don't be ridiculous. And if any government was so stupid as to do that [and none would] the first thing the next government would do is to abrogate from that Treaty and restore NICE.
The LDs now have 21 MPs with the defection of Antoinette Sandbach.
Given how many of the defectors seats they are going to lose, they are needing to make significant gains to stand still.
I'm really surprised they admitted Sandbach. She just makes their problem worse.
On principle, she should clearly not have been let in, same as for Philip Lee. Clearly the Lib Dems feel that it's limited downside in the long term (since she will clearly lose her seat, but probably force the Tories to campaign a bit harder) but potential for short term upside due to the appearance of momentum.
No doubt there are some "MPs wrt time" charts they can produce to look like they are rising exponentially.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
I suspect that if the Brexit Party put up very few candidates those Tory % from 50 onwards will look largely unchanged from 2017 as BXP voters go Tory.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
Carefully omitting that Labour were third last time behind NHAP, I see.
Do you know if they are they standing again, or have they given up now that Hunt is on the backbenches?
No, they're not standing - I'm not sure they even still exist, but they've not done anything locally for the last couple of years, and a colleague is in personal touch with their candidate last time who confirms she's not standing. It was always 100% a health thing.
The local Labour Party was temporarily suspended in 2017 because three prominent Labour people supported her - she split the Labour vote big time, without coming close to Hunt. The LibDems had problems too which are now ancient history and I won't repeat here.
I understand the arguments for tactical voting (and quietly tolerated a vote swap operation with Norman Lamb back in the day), but only in seats where realistically someone clearly has a chance of beating the Tories.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
And don't lose sight of the fact that drug costs are only a small proportion of US healthcare spending. Probably the easiest bit of the tangle to unsnarl, though - and certainly the easiest to describe and compare, which is why they get so much attention.
Most US insurance doesn't include long term pharmaceuticals, so that cost falls directly on the patient. Of course insurance often doesn't cover pre existing conditions, hence the deplorable state of diabetes care in the USA. Insulin can often be $1,000 per month.
So with Farage placing candidates to ensure brexit Parliament with diminished labour, and Russia interference on side of Brexit Boris too, that’s game over already Mr Corbyn isn’t it? 😁
I think it could prove Farage made a mistake by standing alongside Boris and his deal, instead he could have exploited plenty of clear water between himself and Boris, NI, Trumps comments, etc because his stance close to Boris in this election as Trump told him to can’t easily be backed out of in the coming years
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
Mike, Salve your conscience with a vote swap - I prefer Lib Dem but our Lab MP in a marginal is a sound remainer. Once I can find a couple of Lab supporters in a seat where Lib Dems are in the running I will do a swap.
With our electoral system you unfortunately have to hold the candle to the devil. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just safely vote for who we wanted!
Vote swapping is taken off the menu when it still involves voting for the anti-semite Corbyn.
Not when the choice in my constituency is between a rabid Brexiteer and a sound remainer who is is good constituency MP.
also thing the Corbyn-demon will have less impact this time as he's likely to be gone by Christmas
If he's not gone it will be because he's Prime Minister. Only a few seats need to change hands now and Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister come Christmas.
I still don't see a quick Corbyn resignation if he is mullered in the election. If he walks, who replaces him? Logically the deputy leader. Corbyn allowing Tom Watson the reins even for a short period is outside my reality.
He'll stick it out while a campaign is held, so that will probably last until Autumn conference.
Personally I think it is better to take your time rather than an instant resignation after a defeat. Healing and thinking time are required, unless a second election is anticipated quickly.
Not quite sure what the corproate (sic) media is, even if spelt correctly, but I saw that interview and Barry Gardiner didn't take down anyone, he was crap. If this is the best Labour have to offer they really are more stuffed than many of us thought already
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
I broadly agree with this. I'm sad that Rory has left, and I hope he does well in the Mayoral Election. Grieve is showing his true colours by working with the Lib Dems to stop Boris and also Rudd's Lady Hale Halloween outfit vindicates the Tory party for expelling her.
So with Farage placing candidates to ensure brexit Parliament with diminished labour, and Russia interference on side of Brexit Boris too, that’s game over already Mr Corbyn isn’t it? 😁
I think it could prove Farage made a mistake by standing alongside Boris and his deal, instead he could have exploited plenty of clear water between himself and Boris, NI, Trumps comments, etc because his stance close to Boris in this election as Trump told him to can’t easily be backed out of in the coming years
Forget about Farage he's history and trying and flailing to stay relevant. The countries moved on, he wasn't involved with Vote Leave and he won't be involved when the Vote Leave team implement Brexit.
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
Greens not standing in a lot of places I imagine. And young people not being self defeating by voting green in a marginal if they do stand.
The Greens have to stand somewhere, else the lose all credibility. There are very few seats where the Greens can safely stand with any hope of getting a credible number of votes that doesn't actively damage other pro-Remain parties (or Labour).
The Green Party (in England and Wales) stood the following number of candidates at recent elections (out of 573).
2017 -- 457 2015 -- 538 2010 -- 310 2005 -- 182
If they stand aside in 70 seats compared to 2017 as part of Unite to Remain, and then maybe take the total to 100 where they decide locally to stand aside for Labour, they would still be standing in more seats than 2010, when they received 1.0% of the vote.
That's the worst of all worlds for them. More lost deposits, spread too thin to campaign effectively, and sacrifice all seats they might do well in, so overall they look like they're going backwards.
The Greens really need to figure out fast what their priorities are right now. If they're a single issue environmental party then they need to stand and campaign everywhere. If they're a stop brexit party they need to not stand at all and help pro-remain MPs campaign. If they try to be both they'll advance neither cause and probably cause active damage to at least one of them.
Nah, for the vast majority of voters there is an easy tactical choice. Vote Lab in a Lab held seat, vote LD in a Tory held one. It really is that simple.
That works as tactical voting advice in a lot of places, but the LibDems are also trying hard in seats where Labour holds the seat and they're third, using the argument "That was then, this is now", as Mike did.
Indeed in Bedford where I've voted tactically for LAB at the last two elections I won't be next time. However successful the LDs might be I don't want my vote to go Corbyn because of his lack of action on Jew hate racism - something I feel very strongly about.
That's different, though, isn't it? You're saying you don't want to vote Labour because you feel Corbyn hasn't been active on racism, and by implication that overrides other considerations, such as getting a new referendum on Brexit. My point related to voters whose first priority was stopping Brexit. They are being (IMO deliberately) misled by LibDems arguing that anti-Tory tactical voters should support them in seats that Labour holds or seats like Uxbridge where the LibDems obviously aren't going to win. I don't know Bedford at all, but that's certainly happening in Portsmouth South.
If the LibDem argument was "vote for us regardless because we're the best party" or even "vote for us because our rivals are scum", that'd be normal. But they're muddying the tactical vote position in the pursuit of party interest, and that's a gift to Johnson.
We have the converse here in Surrey SW. We are carefully NOT saying that people should vote Labour for tactical reasons, because it'd be dodgy, even though we came ahead of the LibDems last time. I don't really think any party is going to put Hunt's majority at risk, so we may as well all vote for who we prefer.
Interestingly one of the local rags in Guildford highlights Surrey SW as one of the Surrey seats to watch, and it is not talking about a Labour surge. I tend to agree that Hunt is safe, but any chance of taking on the Tories in their seats in Surrey is almost exclusively confined to the LDs. Guildford looks a likely LD win, but the most interesting may be Mole Valley, where the Conservatives had a meltdown in May and where the local plans have been a disaster. I doubt a 24000 majority will disappear, but a reduction to under 10000 or even 5000 is likely.
Also Sir Paul Beresord is a bit of an aloof knob..as for Hunt no chance..that would be one of the last Tory seats to fall in the event of Conservative armageddon
I agree it is quite unlikely and it would be an act of a reckless and wantonly stupid government but I can see a scenario where it might happen.
A government that is reeling from having left the EU with no deal might strike a trade deal in record time with the US and hand wave this away. What a disaster that would be.
Don't be ridiculous. And if any government was so stupid as to do that [and none would] the first thing the next government would do is to abrogate from that Treaty and restore NICE.
To say there is a small chance that a reckless government might do this is not ridiculous. It is low probability but not infinitesimal.
That is why the story is quite potent and why Labour will keep pushing the NHS/Trump trade deal angle throughout this campaign. It will then fall back onto the classic trust the Tories with the NHS meme but with a new and novel dimension chucked in.
I look forward to seeing how it pans out and to see whether the Tories are sharp enough to neutralise it.
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He made real efforts to sell May's deal when she didn't even seem to be bothering herself. His intelligent, reasoned and consensual approach to politics is something we could do with a lot more of in all parties.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has nothing to do with a free market. The US market is broken and so highly regulated and with government spending let alone private spending per capita higher than ours under our NHS. The US needs to sort its own self out first - our NHS pays based on need as well as economic supply and demand, if drugs companies weren't happy with our prices they wouldn't supply us.
And don't lose sight of the fact that drug costs are only a small proportion of US healthcare spending. Probably the easiest bit of the tangle to unsnarl, though - and certainly the easiest to describe and compare, which is why they get so much attention.
Most US insurance doesn't include long term pharmaceuticals, so that cost falls directly on the patient. Of course insurance often doesn't cover pre existing conditions, hence the deplorable state of diabetes care in the USA. Insulin can often be $1,000 per month.
Surely that’s a big multiple of cost price?! Been ages since I did stuff on pharma so might be misremembering, but I recall insulin being dirt cheap these days. From memory, wasn’t the original patent even given away when it was invented because it would save so many lives?
I've only made an initial examination, but the Best for Britain MRP suggests that Labour is hanging onto more Leavers than the Tories are hanging onto Remainers.
The Tories win a big majority because the Remain vote is split.
I'd suggest that this makes the Lib Dems the biggest threat to the Tories because they are most likely to unite the Remain vote in Tory-held seats that voted Remain.
I think that makes sense of the head-to-head debates with Corbyn.
Precisely - most of the talk about tactical voting seems to be based entirely on the premise that voters see it as a choice between the LibDems and Labour, and that they are interchangeable if you want to 'stop Brexit'. But that's codswallop: anyone who supports the LibDems as first choice but is prepared to vote Labour, even under Corbyn, in order to 'stop the Tories' is probably already baked into the 2015 or 2017 vote shares. The people that the tactical vote lot need to attract are those who very sensibly wouldn't vote Labour under Corbyn with a bargepole. These are people who might in the past have voted Conservative - without those, you are not adding much if anything to the previous chances of the 'Remain' parties [if you even count Labour as that].
In other words:
1. Labour -> LibDem tactical voting (not baked in last time) might be significant if you can convince soft Labour voters in a given constituency that the LibDems have a better chance this time of beating the Tories than Labour do [and this in turn depends on 4 below].
2. LibDem -> Labour tactical voting won't happen much, because it's already baked in, and, anyway, Corbyn.
3. Tory Remainer/moderate -> Corbyn's Labour tactical voting: are you 'aving a larf??
4. Tory Remainer/moderate -> LibDem tactical voting: these are the swing voters you most want to get, not least because getting those is the key to getting 2017 Labour voters.
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He made real efforts to sell May's deal when she didn't even seem to be bothering herself. His intelligent, reasoned and consensual approach to politics is something we could do with a lot more of in all parties.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
Fair point about his efforts to sell May's deal, he was the only one that tried, she couldn't sell water to a dehydrated man lost in a desert.
Clarke is the best PM we never had. I was terribly upset and disgusted with Tory Members that they chose IDS over Clarke - worst decision ever!
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Its going to be a fascinating election. You make a key point - the old Labour traditional voting block is withering fast. A combination of the societal impact of a shift away from heavy industry and Brexit has utterly smashed the Labour block vote in places and communities where it has been solid forever. The growing middle class vote had been where Blair realised Labour needed to go shopping for votes, but Corbyn and his allies have decided to abandon this despite almost all of them being solidly from that community.
I really do fear for Labour's chances. "Bugger this" seems to be the response to so many classic Labour voters met with denial and then angry denunciation from the party. There are a lot of good people in Labour and they have a lot of good policies. But with apparently no willingness to compromise I can't see how they recover lost ground as they did in 2017, and once the direction of travel is set its very difficult to turn around...
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
The cratering of the Labour support in the 40-49 bracket is how the Tories have moved the crossover down: they are less popular than before, but less repugnant than Labour.
Conclusion: 1 - FPTP is really shit. It can end up with the incredibly unpopular governments claiming democratic mandates (which is why Conservatives and Labour will never let it go) 2 - The flip side of the above is that when popularity gets hollowed out enough, you can lose everything really suddenly. (See Scottish Labour for pointers)
If you are looking for a black swan, or at least a greyish one, a massive LD surge, mostly against Labour looks a possibility. Labour surge like 2017 looking unlikely, Brexit one impossible. In a short time we may be wondering why a decent Labour leader who would have walked it wasn't put in place in time while Swinson is the new Clegg.
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme could go very badly for Labour. Older than average voters in those seats I believe.
I think we might all be fighting the last war and a bit too influenced by 2017. I do wonder if it’s all a bit more simple this time and a Tory majority very likely for all those reasons; with the probability strengthened further by a “Labour might win this, look at what happened last time” narrative.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
That seems to show the youth vote are going to the greens and a smaller number to the lib dems. If this happens on the 12th December how on earth are labour going to survive
16% Con is pretty grim for the Tories, even compared with 2017.
Both LDs and Lab need to go strong on the Climate Emergency. It is the issue that has the potential to get out the youth vote.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
The cratering of the Labour support in the 40-49 bracket is how the Tories have moved the crossover down: they are less popular than before, but less repugnant than Labour.
Conclusion: 1 - FPTP is really shit. It can end up with the incredibly unpopular governments claiming democratic mandates (which is why Conservatives and Labour will never let it go) 2 - The flip side of the above is that when popularity gets hollowed out enough, you can lose everything really suddenly. (See Scottish Labour for pointers)
If you are looking for a black swan, or at least a greyish one, a massive LD surge, mostly against Labour looks a possibility. Labour surge like 2017 looking unlikely, Brexit one impossible. In a short time we may be wondering why a decent Labour leader who would have walked it wasn't put in place in time while Swinson is the new Clegg.
I honestly think Swinson could beat Corbyn in this election. I'm upset at the idea of Corbyn/Johnson head to heads, I'd rather see 7-way debates like 2015 where Johnson could appear Prime Ministerial and Corbyn is just A N Other alternative and not even the most convincing one.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has
And don't lose sight of the fact that drug costs are only a small proportion of US healthcare spending. Probably the easiest bit of the tangle to unsnarl, though - and certainly the easiest to describe and compare, which is why they get so much attention.
Most US insurance doesn't include long term pharmaceuticals, so that cost falls directly on the patient. Of course insurance often doesn't cover pre existing conditions, hence the deplorable state of diabetes care in the USA. Insulin can often be $1,000 per month.
Surely that’s a big multiple of cost price?! Been ages since I did stuff on pharma so might be misremembering, but I recall insulin being dirt cheap these days. From memory, wasn’t the original patent even given away when it was invented because it would save so many lives?
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Its going to be a fascinating election. You make a key point - the old Labour traditional voting block is withering fast. A combination of the societal impact of a shift away from heavy industry and Brexit has utterly smashed the Labour block vote in places and communities where it has been solid forever. The growing middle class vote had been where Blair realised Labour needed to go shopping for votes, but Corbyn and his allies have decided to abandon this despite almost all of them being solidly from that community.
I really do fear for Labour's chances. "Bugger this" seems to be the response to so many classic Labour voters met with denial and then angry denunciation from the party. There are a lot of good people in Labour and they have a lot of good policies. But with apparently no willingness to compromise I can't see how they recover lost ground as they did in 2017, and once the direction of travel is set its very difficult to turn around...
I can see what Labour are for - a dramatic redistribution of wealth. But I can't see that there is enough of a constituency for it to succeed. How does someone on the median wage, driving a Range Rover Evoque, with a Sky subscription and iPhone X all on the never never view Labour's plans to squeeze the rich when those very same people are for all the world hoping to emulate and mirror the lifestyle of those very same rich?
Harry Dunn's family is to sue crash suspect Anne Sacoolas, their spokesman in the United States has said.
The 19-year-old was killed outside RAF Croughton in a crash with a car owned by Mrs Sacoolas - a US citizen who left the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Family spokesman Radd Seiger said lawyers would also look at "lawless misconduct" of the US administration.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fair” end state once the US sorted itself out would be for us to pay a bit more, and that is problematic for us. There again a better and more efficient US system would free up extra hundreds of billions (literally) for medical research and we’d all win from that.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has
And don't lose sight of the fact that drug costs are only a small proportion of US healthcare spending. Probably the easiest bit of the tangle to unsnarl, though - and certainly the easiest to describe and compare, which is why they get so much attention.
Most US insurance doesn't include long term pharmaceuticals, so that cost falls directly on the patient. Of course insurance often doesn't cover pre existing conditions, hence the deplorable state of diabetes care in the USA. Insulin can often be $1,000 per month.
Surely that’s a big multiple of cost price?! Been ages since I did stuff on pharma so might be misremembering, but I recall insulin being dirt cheap these days. From memory, wasn’t the original patent even given away when it was invented because it would save so many lives?
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He made real efforts to sell May's deal when she didn't even seem to be bothering herself. His intelligent, reasoned and consensual approach to politics is something we could do with a lot more of in all parties.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
Not sure about that. Ken still seems as sharp and loquacious as ever - I would rather have liked to see him stay on even if he is nearly 80. And Rory is a definite loss to a Party that needs to remain a broad church. Oliver Letwin likewise although I appreciate he has made life v difficult and I'm sure accepts the need to move on. I think Philip Hammond has become totally unreconciliable judging by his comments.
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He made real efforts to sell May's deal when she didn't even seem to be bothering herself. His intelligent, reasoned and consensual approach to politics is something we could do with a lot more of in all parties.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
Fair point about his efforts to sell May's deal, he was the only one that tried, she couldn't sell water to a dehydrated man lost in a desert.
Clarke is the best PM we never had. I was terribly upset and disgusted with Tory Members that they chose IDS over Clarke - worst decision ever!
Agree completely. It was bewildering, notwithstanding his views on Europe.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He made real efforts to sell May's deal when she didn't even seem to be bothering herself. His intelligent, reasoned and consensual approach to politics is something we could do with a lot more of in all parties.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
Fair point about his efforts to sell May's deal, he was the only one that tried, she couldn't sell water to a dehydrated man lost in a desert.
Clarke is the best PM we never had. I was terribly upset and disgusted with Tory Members that they chose IDS over Clarke - worst decision ever!
Agree with that. It was completely obvious that IDS would be a disaster. Extraordinary that faced with a choice of heavyweights like Portillo and Clarke the party ended up with Capt Duncan Smith.
Interesting. The Conservative's actually dropped off across all brackets, but the Labour collapse dwarfs it.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38 25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33 30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33 40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25 50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18 60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14 70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
What's also interesting is that it is proportional swing for Labour but UNS for the Tories.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour: 18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%) 25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%) 30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%) 40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%) 50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%) 60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%) 70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives: 18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%) 25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%) 30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%) 40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%) 50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%) 60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
The extent to which Labour has lost the older working class vote is unbelievable. Does anyone else think that, given the current actual polling the odds for the Tories to get an overall majority are a bit long? In normal circumstances they look close to a certainty, and it must be both the volatility and the experience of last time which is stopping them being much more heavily odds on than they are. But Boris is not TM, much will have been learned from last time, Jezza is no longer new and no-one apart from me (so I must be wrong) seems to think Jo Swinson is a winner.
Its going to be a fascinating election. You make a key point - the old Labour traditional voting block is withering fast. A combination of the societal impact of a shift away from heavy industry and Brexit has utterly smashed the Labour block vote in places and communities where it has been solid forever. The growing middle class vote had been where Blair realised Labour needed to go shopping for votes, but Corbyn and his allies have decided to abandon this despite almost all of them being solidly from that community.
I really do fear for Labour's chances. "Bugger this" seems to be the response to so many classic Labour voters met with denial and then angry denunciation from the party. There are a lot of good people in Labour and they have a lot of good policies. But with apparently no willingness to compromise I can't see how they recover lost ground as they did in 2017, and once the direction of travel is set its very difficult to turn around...
Quite right. And for generations a social democratic and pragmatic Labour party has achieved so many things of which its less well off voter base were proud. NHS, education, pensions, workers rights, social reform. The fact that almost all of the older generation who will remember Roy Jenkins, Harold Wilson, Healey, Barbara Castle, Callaghan and even Attlee (for the even older ones) have now abandoned ship is telling.
So with Farage placing candidates to ensure brexit Parliament with diminished labour, and Russia interference on side of Brexit Boris too, that’s game over already Mr Corbyn isn’t it? 😁
I think it could prove Farage made a mistake by standing alongside Boris and his deal, instead he could have exploited plenty of clear water between himself and Boris, NI, Trumps comments, etc because his stance close to Boris in this election as Trump told him to can’t easily be backed out of in the coming years
Forget about Farage he's history and trying and flailing to stay relevant. The countries moved on, he wasn't involved with Vote Leave and he won't be involved when the Vote Leave team implement Brexit.
But you agree Farage is charismatic? And that Boris as a character will always be under attack and divisive? And that his deal is far from perfect?
O'Mara, Letwin, Grieve, P Hammond, possibly Vaz, Soubry, Wollaston, Bercow, its just possible that the next Parliament will be a better place. Clarke and Stewart will be significant losses of course.
Clarke's a loss for his history, I'm fond of him but how much has he done in the last 2 years as opposed to the last 49? He's well past his prime and overdue a well deserved retirement.
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He made real efforts to sell May's deal when she didn't even seem to be bothering herself. His intelligent, reasoned and consensual approach to politics is something we could do with a lot more of in all parties.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
Not sure about that. Ken still seems as sharp and loquacious as ever - I would rather have liked to see him stay on even if he is nearly 80. And Rory is a definite loss to a Party that needs to remain a broad church. Oliver Letwin likewise although I appreciate he has made life v difficult and I'm sure accepts the need to move on. I think Philip Hammond has become totally unreconciliable judging by his comments.
Rory is the real loss. Like Ruth in Scotland he was the type of Tory that non Tories like and whom they would give a decent hearing. Boris has evolved into the type of Tory most non Tories cannot stand as we see daily on here. He wasn't always like that but the party risks narrowing its base to a point where majorities are generally very difficult, even if Corbyn may well give a helping hand on this occasion.
Don’t get me wrong, our system works well for us and we should try and defend it; but the US does have a legitimate grievance in that precisely because it’s healthcare system is so poorly designed it pays more than it’s fair share of development costs. The rest of the world gets a free ride off the US inability to manage healthcare well.
That's true, we are getting a good deal relative to the US. But the answer is for them to start being sensible with their pricing not for us to changes ours.
What should the price be for a new drug? The UK thinks it should be related to the benefits generated.
Pharma companies think it should be 'what the market will bear' and with the US system, there is almost no upper limit.
I agree, but the “fairt.
Not necessarily. A lot of US distortion is entirely self-inflicted and has
And don't lose sight of the fact that drug costs are only a small proportion of US healthcare spending. Probably the easiest bit of the tangle to unsnarl, though - and certainly the easiest to describe and compare, which is why they get so much attention.
Most US insurance doesn't include long term pharmaceuticals, so that cost falls directly on the patient. Of course insurance often doesn't cover pre existing conditions, hence the deplorable state of diabetes care in the USA. Insulin can often be $1,000 per month.
Surely that’s a big multiple of cost price?! Been ages since I did stuff on pharma so might be misremembering, but I recall insulin being dirt cheap these days. From memory, wasn’t the original patent even given away when it was invented because it would save so many lives?
It is absolutely crazy, but not just insulin. Despite epinephrine bring dirt cheap EpiPen have become ridiculously expensive. It is just profiteering.
US healthcare is a business, and the purpose of that business is like any other, to extract the maximum amount of money from the customer.
As ever, this is where the US forgets the “well regulated” bit of Adam Smith. It’s fine for private business to target maximum cash, provided the market is shaped by a regulator to either ensure competition or otherwise restrict monopolies. See also rental property in London and the commuter belt...
Yep: Johnson won’t suffer any real political damage from failing to get the UK out by the due date. [He’s already lied his way out of blame for breaking his promise, by putting the blame on Non-Tory members of parliament, and calling them remaniacs. (Note: right-wing Tories started such lies a while back, having tried to make everyone believe that it was Parliament, as opposed to members of the present cabinet, that prevented TMay's deal getting approved.) But Johnson had other reasons for pressing for a Dec election rather than proceed with the WAB. (i) The full awfulness of the WA + PD, and thus the fact of Johnson's deal being so much worse than May's would be revealed if the WAB were debated in the present Parliament. (ii) For many people, Johnson's "attractions" rely on his promise to deliver Brexit.And if we'd been out of the EU already at the time of the election, the focus wouldn't have been on Brexit, but on how appallingly Tory Governments have served the people of the nation. Summary: victory for Johnson is more likely (he and Cummings must have thought) if we haven't already left the EU at election time.
So with Farage placing candidates to ensure brexit Parliament with diminished labour, and Russia interference on side of Brexit Boris too, that’s game over already Mr Corbyn isn’t it? 😁
I think it could prove Farage made a mistake by standing alongside Boris and his deal, instead he could have exploited plenty of clear water between himself and Boris, NI, Trumps comments, etc because his stance close to Boris in this election as Trump told him to can’t easily be backed out of in the coming years
Forget about Farage he's history and trying and flailing to stay relevant. The countries moved on, he wasn't involved with Vote Leave and he won't be involved when the Vote Leave team implement Brexit.
But you agree Farage is charismatic? And that Boris as a character will always be under attack and divisive? And that his deal is far from perfect?
Farage is a charismatic outsider, good for protest votes, not so relevant to genera elections.
Boris is a character who will be under attack and divisive sure, all Prime Ministers are and all transformative ones even moreso. Boris is also charismatic and finds ways to neuter attacks and be less divisive than otherwise you'd expect - a skill Blair and Cameron both had too.
His deal is far from perfect but don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. It is much better than nothing and much better than May's fatally flawed deal.
Comments
If the LibDem argument was "vote for us regardless because we're the best party" or even "vote for us because our rivals are scum", that'd be normal. But they're muddying the tactical vote position in the pursuit of party interest, and that's a gift to Johnson.
We have the converse here in Surrey SW. We are carefully NOT saying that people should vote Labour for tactical reasons, because it'd be dodgy, even though we came ahead of the LibDems last time. I don't really think any party is going to put Hunt's majority at risk, so we may as well all vote for who we prefer.
Given the marginal cost of most non-biological drugs is usually very low indeed, pharmaceutical companies make very good profits on their ex US sales too - just not some of the excess profits they can achieve in the US.
And given the likely enormous growth in new markets - notably India and China - over the next decade, the returns on drug development are unlikely to collapse even if the US manage to sort out their own system (fairly likely, should Trump get ejected next year).
Let’s hope that history rhymes!
We have a process where we set a cap currently and we can walk away without the drug if the price is too high that it blows the cost-effectiveness. We do, often. But a deal is often agreed because the price can be reduced in secrecy and Pharma is happier to come down to open up the market rather than have nothing at all.
Remove the secrecy, then the price is now a global price and there is no way pharma will budge for us when we represent less than 5% of global sales. The NHS loses its credible walking away strategy. We pay more or we don't get it.
I agree it would be ludicrous for any government to rip up this system. It would be the first red line in any negotiation for me.
May voted to extend Article 50 in March, Patel did not.
Medicare is the biggest chunk of spending of course.
How any rational American can actually defend where they have got to is beyond me. It’s not even operating like a market - it’s a bizarre system of limitless demand, fuelling unnecessary supply and utterly failing to result in an efficient use of capital or labour.
18-24: Con from 21 to 16, but Lab from 64 to 38
25-29: Con from 23 to 18, but Lab from 63 to 33
30-39: Con from 29 to 23, but Lab from 55 to 33
40-49: Con from 39 to 32, but Lab from 45 to 25
50-59: Con from 47 to 39, but Lab from 37 to 18
60-69: Con from 58 to 45, but Lab from 27 to 14
70+: Con from 69 to 58, but Lab from 19 to 9
The cratering of the Labour support in the 40-49 bracket is how the Tories have moved the crossover down: they are less popular than before, but less repugnant than Labour.
Conclusion:
1 - FPTP is really shit. It can end up with the incredibly unpopular governments claiming democratic mandates (which is why Conservatives and Labour will never let it go)
2 - The flip side of the above is that when popularity gets hollowed out enough, you can lose everything really suddenly. (See Scottish Labour for pointers)
Sometimes scare stories are literally just that.
By contrast, in the 12 months of the run up to the 2015 election we were absolutely inundated with printed material from the Conservatives. I think it was mainly generated by the national campaign, so I presume that our experience is not atypical. The parallel is with 2017 when nothing happened until the election started, but in 2019 you could at least see the election coming from a mile off.
Do you know if they are they standing again, or have they given up now that Hunt is on the backbenches?
https://twitter.com/MarkHiggie1/status/1190175181718904832
A government that is reeling from having left the EU with no deal might strike a trade deal in record time with the US and hand wave this away. What a disaster that would be.
I can assure you that most of what I say will be about Boris’s deal and the need, in my view, for some kind of Brexit alliance.
I'm really surprised they admitted Sandbach. She just makes their problem worse.
Across the board Labour have lost roughly 40-50% of their voters, so have lost more massively more young than elderly voters
Labour:
18-24: 64 to 38 (26 lost -41%)
25-29: 63 to 33 (30 lost -48%)
30-39: 55 to 33 (22 lost -40%)
40-49: 45 to 25 (20 lost -44%)
50-59: 37 to 18 (19 lost -51%)
60-69: 27 to 14 (13 lost -48%)
70+: 19 to 9 (10 lost -53%)
Tories have across the board lost 7% +/- 2%
Conservatives:
18-24: 21 to 16 (5 lost -24%)
25-29: 23 to 18 (5 lost -22%)
30-39: 29 to 23 (6 lost -21%)
40-49: 39 to 32 (7 lost -18%)
50-59: 47 to 39 (8 lost -17%)
60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%)
70+: 69 to 58 (9 lost -13%)
The local Labour Party was temporarily suspended in 2017 because three prominent Labour people supported her - she split the Labour vote big time, without coming close to Hunt. The LibDems had problems too which are now ancient history and I won't repeat here.
I understand the arguments for tactical voting (and quietly tolerated a vote swap operation with Norman Lamb back in the day), but only in seats where realistically someone clearly has a chance of beating the Tories.
also thing the Corbyn-demon will have less impact this time as he's likely to be gone by Christmas
Or do they pay more for TV adverts, donations to Congressmen, and overall corruption within their totally failed healthcare system? Don't forget the drug companies here don't pay a penny to MPs, don't pay a penny to take doctors on holidays, don't pay a penny on TV advertising so all we are paying for is the drugs themselves.
Interestingly, I tried East Devon, and she seems to think Hugo Swire has lost his seat to Claire Wright (Independent) at some point. Oops.
However, rationally it should be up for discussion. If the benefits of a US trade deal were great enough* (in terms of tax receipts from growth) that they would more than offset increasing costs from (e.g.) changing secrecy around the prices NHS pays for pharma then it would make economic sense to do the deal. Of course, growth forecasts are uncertain, so it would have to be a very clear benefit and I think it would be politically impossible. But all trade deals are trade-offs, there will be bits good for each party to the deal and bits bad to each party to the deal.
* I doubt they would be
Adding issue:
60-69: 58 to 45 (7 lost -12%) 13 lost
No doubt there are some "MPs wrt time" charts they can produce to look like they are rising exponentially.
That really stands out as the odd one out.
I think it could prove Farage made a mistake by standing alongside Boris and his deal, instead he could have exploited plenty of clear water between himself and Boris, NI, Trumps comments, etc because his stance close to Boris in this election as Trump told him to can’t easily be backed out of in the coming years
Stewart I'm not sure besides winning lots of fans due to the fact he can walk and pretend he's holding the cameramans camera that he's actually done.
He'll stick it out while a campaign is held, so that will probably last until Autumn conference.
Personally I think it is better to take your time rather than an instant resignation after a defeat. Healing and thinking time are required, unless a second election is anticipated quickly.
The Greens really need to figure out fast what their priorities are right now. If they're a single issue environmental party then they need to stand and campaign everywhere. If they're a stop brexit party they need to not stand at all and help pro-remain MPs campaign. If they try to be both they'll advance neither cause and probably cause active damage to at least one of them.
That is why the story is quite potent and why Labour will keep pushing the NHS/Trump trade deal angle throughout this campaign. It will then fall back onto the classic trust the Tories with the NHS meme but with a new and novel dimension chucked in.
I look forward to seeing how it pans out and to see whether the Tories are sharp enough to neutralise it.
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/events/
Too busy at work here.
There might be betting implications if Nige says where they will stand but I guess there will be horsetrading to come.
I agree that it is time Ken retired. Despite never getting the top job he has been one of the most distinguished and useful politicians of his generation.
They are mad.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10243224/terrifying-vintage-halloween-pics/
In other words:
1. Labour -> LibDem tactical voting (not baked in last time) might be significant if you can convince soft Labour voters in a given constituency that the LibDems have a better chance this time of beating the Tories than Labour do [and this in turn depends on 4 below].
2. LibDem -> Labour tactical voting won't happen much, because it's already baked in, and, anyway, Corbyn.
3. Tory Remainer/moderate -> Corbyn's Labour tactical voting: are you 'aving a larf??
4. Tory Remainer/moderate -> LibDem tactical voting: these are the swing voters you most want to get, not least because getting those is the key to getting 2017 Labour voters.
Clarke is the best PM we never had. I was terribly upset and disgusted with Tory Members that they chose IDS over Clarke - worst decision ever!
Taking on Rotten Boroughs?
I'm really not sure about that
I really do fear for Labour's chances. "Bugger this" seems to be the response to so many classic Labour voters met with denial and then angry denunciation from the party. There are a lot of good people in Labour and they have a lot of good policies. But with apparently no willingness to compromise I can't see how they recover lost ground as they did in 2017, and once the direction of travel is set its very difficult to turn around...
If you are looking for a black swan, or at least a greyish one, a massive LD surge, mostly against Labour looks a possibility. Labour surge like 2017 looking unlikely, Brexit one impossible. In a short time we may be wondering why a decent Labour leader who would have walked it wasn't put in place in time while Swinson is the new Clegg.
https://medicareworld.com/healthcare/klobuchar-insulin-prices/
It is absolutely crazy, but not just insulin. Despite epinephrine bring dirt cheap EpiPen have become ridiculously expensive. It is just profiteering.
US healthcare is a business, and the purpose of that business is like any other, to extract the maximum amount of money from the customer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50225227
Harry Dunn's family is to sue crash suspect Anne Sacoolas, their spokesman in the United States has said.
The 19-year-old was killed outside RAF Croughton in a crash with a car owned by Mrs Sacoolas - a US citizen who left the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.
Family spokesman Radd Seiger said lawyers would also look at "lawless misconduct" of the US administration.
Well, the alternative is dying.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/11/01/how-will-eu-referendum-and-2017-voters-cast-their-
And that Boris as a character will always be under attack and divisive?
And that his deal is far from perfect?
https://www.thebrexitparty.org/events/
But Johnson had other reasons for pressing for a Dec election rather than proceed with the WAB. (i) The full awfulness of the WA + PD, and thus the fact of Johnson's deal being so much worse than May's would be revealed if the WAB were debated in the present Parliament. (ii) For many people, Johnson's "attractions" rely on his promise to deliver Brexit.And if we'd been out of the EU already at the time of the election, the focus wouldn't have been on Brexit, but on how appallingly Tory Governments have served the people of the nation.
Summary: victory for Johnson is more likely (he and Cummings must have thought) if we haven't already left the EU at election time.
Boris is a character who will be under attack and divisive sure, all Prime Ministers are and all transformative ones even moreso. Boris is also charismatic and finds ways to neuter attacks and be less divisive than otherwise you'd expect - a skill Blair and Cameron both had too.
His deal is far from perfect but don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. It is much better than nothing and much better than May's fatally flawed deal.