# Jeremy Corbyn reveals dossier 'proving NHS up for sale'



## Northerner (Nov 27, 2019)

Labour has obtained official documents showing the US is demanding that the NHS will be “on the table” in talks on a post-Brexit trade deal, Jeremy Corbyn has said.

The Labour leader said the uncensored papers gave the lie to Boris Johnson’s claims that the NHS would not be part of any trade talks.

“The uncensored documents leave Boris Johnson’s denials in absolute tatters,” he told a news conference in London. “We have now got evidence that under Boris Johnson the NHS is on the table and will be up for sale. He tried to cover it up in a secret agenda and today it has been exposed.”

Corbyn said the 451 pages of documents covered six rounds of talks from July 2017 to “just a few months ago”. He said the meetings took place in Washington and London.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...orbyn-reveals-dossier-proving-nhs-up-for-sale

It may not actually spell it out, but as was said in the press conference '451 pages is a very long-winded way to say 'No''  And if there was nothing in the document to be concerned about, then why was the entire text originally redacted?


----------



## Docb (Nov 27, 2019)

I really do wish that these people who want to run the country would not reduce every issue into a slogan ridden slanging match.  The idea of the NHS being for sale or not for sale is ludicrous. You cannot sell the NHS.   What is for sure is that American Medical enterprises would love to get supply contracts for the NHS mainly because payment, from tax money, is guaranteed.  They would also like to get the best terms possible and would be looking for them to be enhanced compared with other sources when taken as part of a bigger package including other sectors.  The worry is that a future conservative government would see giving away lucrative NHS contracts as worthwhile if for example, it meant better access to American financial markets.  

All I ask is for politicians to stop treating people as being stupid.  Please lay out the issues and stop using slogans.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 27, 2019)

Docb said:


> What is for sure is that American Medical enterprises would love to get supply contracts for the NHS mainly because payment, from tax money, is guaranteed.



And they'd like us to "value innovation" in things like drugs (which would include them wanting us to pay high prices for drugs which might (or might not) work well). I agree it's put in stupid ways by politicians. (I can't help feeling the current lot aren't the best we've ever had, but perhaps previous generations were just as bad and we just didn't notice so much.)

(It's nicely summarised by https://newsthump.com/2019/11/27/we...would-interpret-them-correctly-insist-tories/)


----------



## novonord (Nov 27, 2019)

it's a non story,
already the laundry in the hospital I work at is done by Steris, a giant American corporation and nearly all the advanced oncology drugs are being sourced from American biotechs and major pharma companies on the back of American trials and subsidised by the profits made by those companies selling their drugs at greatly inflated prices in their home market. The NHS pays a much lower rate for access to the British market. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we go back to the days when eg laundry was provided in-house in each small NHS location including the smallest hospitals?


----------



## Northerner (Nov 27, 2019)

I think people are missing the point. They want extended patents, increased prices and 'full market access', which means the removal of NICE. If we leave the EU on no deal in December 2020 (looking likely, since any deal concluded over less than 12 months will be very poor and dictated by the EU if they know 'we' are in a rush to leave), then we are wide open to an 'America First' Trump deal. There are also sections about omitting climate change considerations and food safety standards. The government may not have explicitly agreed to any of this, but you can bet your bottom dollar (!) they will agree to substantial parts of it if they are to win any significant concessions from the US.

Yes, it's a simplified slogan, but have you ever listened to voxpops and been shocked at the level of actual knowledge of Joe Public? Only slogans cut through these days, people don't look into the detail


----------



## novonord (Nov 27, 2019)

Grandpa Jezza's plan to set up a nationalised drug co won't work and will make the UK an unattractive place to introduce new drugs.
if we want new developments in drugs, and want them exhaustively tested for efficacy and safety in the sure knowledge that most new chemical entities will fail, then we, as the 5th largest economy, will have to allow the drug companies a reasonable patent period and reasonable return on their capital- it costs upwards of a billion dollars to get a new drug on the market-then there's the problem of rare diseases, special provisions have to be made for so-called orphan indications otherwise it's simply not worth the drug co's time to develop drugs for conditions like cystic fibrosis and PNH.
as an example in the diabetes field, NN had to conduct 10 phase 3 trials involving 1000s of patients including a separate trial for cardiovascular outcomes and a separate trial for Japanese subjects before oral semaglutide was accepted and this may revolutionise type 2 diabetes management in time but the cost must have run well into the billions-will the UK allow a reasonable return or not?


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Nov 28, 2019)

novonord said:


> Grandpa Jezza's plan to set up a nationalised drug co won't work and will make the UK an unattractive place to introduce new drugs.
> if we want new developments in drugs, and want them exhaustively tested for efficacy and safety in the sure knowledge that most new chemical entities will fail, then we, as the 5th largest economy, will have to allow the drug companies a reasonable patent period and reasonable return on their capital- it costs upwards of a billion dollars to get a new drug on the market-then there's the problem of rare diseases, special provisions have to be made for so-called orphan indications otherwise it's simply not worth the drug co's time to develop drugs for conditions like cystic fibrosis and PNH.
> as an example in the diabetes field, NN had to conduct 10 phase 3 trials involving 1000s of patients including a separate trial for cardiovascular outcomes and a separate trial for Japanese subjects before oral semaglutide was accepted and this may revolutionise type 2 diabetes management in time but the cost must have run well into the billions-will the UK allow a reasonable return or not?



I don’t disagree with your comments on the financial implications of research into new medications, but one of the current issues which makes me deeply uncomfortable about the possibility of US pharma giants being allowed to dictate more terms (patents and prices) to the NHS is the price gouging of insulin in America. A product like Humalog (unchanged for decades) is seeing relentless price rises in 1000’s of percent - something like $350 for a 10ml vial as opposed to £25 here - for exactly the SAME product. The company’s response to introduce a ‘cheap’ generic version rather pales into insignificance when you recognise that the ‘cheap’ version in the US still costs 5x the amount of the ‘proper’ version here.

Work is underway to attempt to force these big companies to reduce their prices, but it seems clear that if they CAN charge and increase prices exorbitantly... they will. 

The purpose of NICE is to establish whether any medication or intervention is worth the price tag based on the weight of clinical evidence and it’s impact on health/quality of life.


----------



## nonethewiser (Nov 28, 2019)

Corbyn needs more than dossier to save his party from getting spanking in polling stations, interview with Andrew Neil was embarrassing, his reply to ISIS question was nothing short of pathetic, man hasn't a clue how to run his own party never mind country.

For record, speaking as life long Labour voter so hard to write this, but that is reality of current state of party.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 28, 2019)

Boris is avoiding Andrew Neil. Wonder why? Is he scared of Andrew asking why we now have food banks and increased child poverty since the Tories have been in charge? Is he scared of Andrew asking about the Russian funding of the current Tory campaign? 

Like you, nonethewiser, I fell disenfranchised (since I left Scotland.) I live in hope of Kier Starmer taking up the mantle of Labour leader.


----------



## Bronco Billy (Nov 28, 2019)

All is not what Labour would make it seem

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/...SHIkCdge0qY77qfIgEtCK_ZE_fyy5Rn87yZt_cHRARraI


----------



## Jodee (Nov 29, 2019)

I don't actually believe what Corbyn says


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 4, 2019)

Jodee said:


> I don't actually believe what Corbyn says



Thats a bit picky, Jodee. Boris is a proven liar, and repeats his lies endlessly. He promises 40 new hospitals. That's actually six. He is hiding from public interrogation. He is hiding Russian involvement in British politics, and more particularly the amount of Russian emigre funding of the current Tory party funding. By far the biggest donors. At least Corbyn realises what is going on in the NHS. And we never had foodbanks until Cameron and his posh cronies decided that making poor people worse off was a way to save money, while the rich got richer. It's not a Brexit election. It's about the sort of society you want.


----------



## Bronco Billy (Dec 4, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> And we never had foodbanks until Cameron and his posh cronies decided that making poor people worse off was a way to save money, while the rich got richer. It's not a Brexit election. It's about the sort of society you want.




It seems foodbankl#s first appeared in the UK in 2000. Who was in power then?


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 5, 2019)

That may be so, but it was the the rapid multiplication , by thousands, after the Tory freeze on benefits, and the introduction of the much despised Universal Credit. If you freeze benefit payments while the rest of us better off have to pay increased food and energy costs, it's hardly an unexpected phenomenon. At least under Labour benefits increased in line with inflation. As pensions still are.


----------



## ypauly (Dec 7, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> Boris is avoiding Andrew Neil. Wonder why? Is he scared of Andrew asking why we now have food banks and increased child poverty since the Tories have been in charge? Is he scared of Andrew asking about the Russian funding of the current Tory campaign?
> 
> Like you, nonethewiser, I fell disenfranchised (since I left Scotland.) I live in hope of Kier Starmer taking up the mantle of Labour leader.


Isn't it Labour working with the Russians? they seem to be getting a lot of sensitive reports off them


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 8, 2019)

One sensitive report, rather than lots. And no money, either. The Russian funding of the Tories has been reported extensively in Private Eye, not exactly a hotbed of lefties.


----------



## Jodee (Dec 8, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> Thats a bit picky, Jodee. Boris is a proven liar, and repeats his lies endlessly. He promises 40 new hospitals. That's actually six. He is hiding from public interrogation. He is hiding Russian involvement in British politics, and more particularly the amount of Russian emigre funding of the current Tory party funding. By far the biggest donors. At least Corbyn realises what is going on in the NHS. And we never had foodbanks until Cameron and his posh cronies decided that making poor people worse off was a way to save money, while the rich got richer. It's not a Brexit election. It's about the sort of society you want.



ha ha yes I am picky about certain things   None of them are trustworthy but some blatantly obviously not.  It twas Corbyn who was pleading Russia's case 'we don't know if it was them',  he is not worth listening to in my opinion.  I guess everyone is gonna believe precisely what they are gonna believe   Its the way of the world - well my world anyway, I'm inclined not to believe things that come straight out of politicians mouths.  Cameron is history we need to look forward not dwell on the past.  Lets just get Brexit done, and let all politicians support the majority vote and stop the idiotic attempts to stop Brexit if any one did we are all doomed, our votes would be invalid, the destruction of democracy.


----------



## Jodee (Dec 8, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> One sensitive report, rather than lots. And no money, either. The Russian funding of the Tories has been reported extensively in Private Eye, not exactly a hotbed of lefties.


A lot of fake news out there Mike, it always surprises me how some people so readily believe it.  It suits them to I suppose.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 9, 2019)

Aye, but the trouble is, it’s not fake news. That’s why Boris has suppressed the report on Russian interference.


----------



## Bronco Billy (Dec 9, 2019)

It's Labour who have been collaborating with Russia

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...reddit-russia-corbyn-nhs-brexit-a9236761.html


----------



## Jodee (Dec 9, 2019)

mikeyB said:


> Aye, but the trouble is, it’s not fake news. That’s why Boris has suppressed the report on Russian interference.


I'm thinking corbyn made that up..


----------



## grovesy (Dec 10, 2019)

Jodee said:


> I'm thinking corbyn made that up..


The MP who is the chair of the committee who headed it up , has been said it should have been released by now!


----------



## Eddy Edson (Dec 10, 2019)

Jodee said:


> I'm thinking corbyn made that up..



Reddit thinks it's real: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/12/...n-interference-campaign-ahead-of-uk-election/


----------



## Docb (Dec 10, 2019)

For goodness sake, everybody tries to interfere in everybody elses elections.  We've been doing it round the world for years.  The idea that the Russians are interfering in this election is fair enough, its par for the course, but the idea that any party is in collusion with the Russians is a bit daft.  If there was collusion with anybody then the Russians would leak it if only to create more confusion.


----------



## Jodee (Dec 10, 2019)

Docb said:


> For goodness sake, everybody tries to interfere in everybody elses elections.  We've been doing it round the world for years.  The idea that the Russians are interfering in this election is fair enough, its par for the course, but the idea that any party is in collusion with the Russians is a bit daft.  If there was collusion with anybody then the Russians would leak it if only to create more confusion.


The Russians would make that up too  - namely Putin's lot


----------



## Jodee (Dec 10, 2019)

grovesy said:


> The MP who is the chair of the committee who headed it up , has been said it should have been released by now!



British Intelligence I might consider having a more accurate angle on the facts


----------

