[Red_Army]

It's simply amazing that people were convinced that Brexit was more important than the NHS. It's going to be a seriously rude awakening when it gets sold off.

[Politics_Observer]

@Red_Army

Amen to that RA. I don't know much about UK politics, but I do think it was a mistake for the UK to try to leave the EU and I also think their National Health Service is more important than Brexit if I were in the shoes of a UK citizen. I am not an expert on their NHS either, so those who have used it would be a better authority to speak on it than me. But it would seem a NHS properly funded would be something I would want as a UK citizen. I know an engineer here in the US who is from the UK and he tells me, if I remember correctly, the "Tories" as he called them, are doing their best to ensure that the NHS is not properly funded.

I assume by ensuring that their NHS is not properly funded they (the so called "Tories" as he called them which I assume is a UK political party) could somehow just say, "You see! This NHS doesn't work! We have to get rid of it! It was just a bad idea that could never possibly work every no matter what." This is their way of trying to intentionally ensure that the NHS is not properly funded and then turn around and blame the idea of NHS and portray it as a bad idea by setting it up for failure in the first place and intentionally ensuring it fails. I could be wrong, but that's what I gathered from some dude here in the US who is from the UK. But I never lived there, so, what do I know? And who knows if this guy knows what he's talking about?

[Red_Army]

I've heard the same about funding the NHS.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It's going to be a seriously rude awakening when it gets sold off.

What does "sold off" mean in this context?

The only thing I can think of is that there would be more private service providers that are reimbursed by the state. In that case the UK would become more like France, Germany or Austria, but I don't see how this relates to Brexit. The UK model seems to be that primary care is provided by private GP practices but specialist care by public clinics. Coming originally from a country which provides specialist services predominantly through private practices, I liked the private provision more mainly because it is invariably more personal, but both are perfectly acceptable. Either way, the Tories have been in government for a decade and have done nothing to change the way the NHS operates, neither have they shown an appetite for it.

If this relates to the US boogeyman post-Brexit, the only credible concern I've come across so far is about drug pricing, but "sold off" obviously indicates something bigger and more nefarious.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

What sort of "boogeyman" could come out of Brexit for the US? Why would we view any sort of "boogeyman" that comes out of the decisions of another country that do not concern us? The UK has been good friends with the US for a very long time and we have nothing to fear from the UK. We have plenty to fear from our incompetent, dangerous narcissistic "President" Trump though.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Politics_Observer, "US boogeyman" refers to the fact that the US has been portrayed in the UK as a threat to the NHS since the Brexit referendum. The idea seems to be that any trade deal with the US would invariably lead to the NHS being "dismantled" and the UK health care system becoming like that in the US, e.g. people will get bills after hospital treatment.

[Politics_Observer]

@Kaiserschmarrn

@Politics_Observer, "US boogeyman" refers to the fact that the US has been portrayed in the UK as a threat to the NHS since the Brexit referendum. The idea seems to be that any trade deal with the US would invariably lead to the NHS being "dismantled" and the UK health care system becoming like that in the US, e.g. people will get bills after hospital treatment.

Ahh OK! That makes sense. It does seem that the UK has followed the US economically in becoming a more unequal society. The US is one of the wealthiest countries on earth but is also one of the most unequal. My understanding is the UK has followed this path too but perhaps not quite as bad as the US though I can't say for sure. I can see where some might fear the UK government might follow the US by getting rid of NHS and privatizing all health care. The Affordable Care Act that Obama got passed here in the US helped my wife tremendously and us as a family given that it helped my wife.

However, the republicans fought against the Affordable Care Act tooth and nail and try to take away it's effectiveness as much as possible in the hopes of causing it to fail and then they can say "You see, this idea is just a bad idea that will fail no matter what" when that is not necessarily the case if it was actually given a fair shot to see what sort of results it would bring. People don't pay attention to politics enough or are not educated enough to see when they are being hoodwinked by the other party (or they have top notch private health care and can easily afford it and just don't care about anybody else and want to keep their health insurance rates as low as possible, it's the "F U I got mine" mentality so to speak). And the republicans rely on that. That and playing to the fears and prejudices of their base to get elected.

That being all said, just because the UK makes a trade deal with the US doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be the end of their NHS.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn
Ahh OK! That makes sense. It does seem that the UK has followed the US economically in becoming a more unequal society. The US is one of the wealthiest countries on earth but is also one of the most unequal. My understanding is the UK has followed this path too but perhaps not quite as bad as the US though I can't say for sure. I can see where some might fear the UK government might follow the US by getting rid of NHS and privatizing all health care. The Affordable Care Act that Obama got passed here in the US helped my wife tremendously and us as a family given that it helped my wife.

However, the republicans fought against the Affordable Care Act tooth and nail and try to take away it's effectiveness as much as possible in the hopes of causing it to fail and then they can say "You see, this idea is just a bad idea that will fail no matter what" when that is not necessarily the case if it was actually given a fair shot to see what sort of results it would bring. People don't pay attention to politics enough or are not educated enough to see when they are being hoodwinked by the other party. And the republicans rely on that. That and playing to the fears and prejudices of their base to get elected.

I'm somewhat familiar with the history of the ACA and it's good to hear that your wife's health benefited from it.

You are right that people mistrust the Tories on public services, including the NHS, but I also think that most people don't appreciate that the Tories would be toast if they even hinted at questioning universal health insurance coverage (which is what Obamacare addressed). Some people might suggest moving to an insurance based system, but only if it still provided universal coverage, although I don't see that catching on either.

The other part of the discussion involves whether the provision of healthcare is public or private. e.g. whether doctors are self-employed and get reimbursed or whether they are employed directly by the NHS. There is a mixture of public and private care delivery in most European countries, including the UK, but most of them have extensive private provision, especially in primary care. Here, the Tories might be more amenable, whereas Labour recently suggested to basically nationalise everything to do with the NHS. But as I said, more private services would make the UK more similar not only to the US but also to countries like France and Germany.

Overall, the debate about the NHS is fraught and characterised by lots of confusion. The most recent election is not too different to previous ones in that Labour had a variation of "save our NHS from the Tories" as a slogan in every election campaign they've run. I can't blame them for exploiting this issue as a party, but they certainly don't help at all in clearing up any confusion. In my view the Tories have no choice but start building trust on this and other public services. They don't have to be as lavish as Labour and they won't be, but they will have to put their money where their mouth is to some extent.

[Beren]

This is coming to a head sooner than later. It will be interesting to see how the Tories will manage this situation.

They'll let the Scots have their referendum and leave if they really mean to, I guess, then they can rule Wengland for a century perhaps.

I am convinced America is dumb enough to give this a second go with Trump.

Even with a second go with Trump the Americans still would be less dumb than the British are with Brexit and Johnson.

[Potemkin]

They'll let the Scots have their referendum and leave if they really mean to, I guess, then they can rule Wengland for a century perhaps.

If the Tories are true to their motto of "party before country", they'll grant the SNP their referendum, and then rule forever over Little England. Lol.

Even with a second go with Trump the Americans still would be less dumb than the British are with Brexit and Johnson.

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein.

[Rich]

If the NHS has got enough money to fritter it away on sex changes, then we should be looking at cutting its budget not spending more. Also cutting the NHS would be a great way to cut carbon emissions. Maybe that would shut-up that whining little Swedish brat

[layman]

Apparently there were 2 million more votes for party's that support a second referendum.

However, This will still be seen as a pro brexit because the headline is tories winning the pro brexit working class north.

What will be forgotten - and more subtle - is how the southern ramainers preferred brexit to Corbyn and/or split their vote.

Anyway, it's a done deal now. Johnson will sell out the hard core brexiteers and sign up to a soft brexit while gas lighting the public that it is a true brexit. In this new age of dodgy facts it will probably work. Farage can try to call betrayal but his message now becomes the complicated one.

Farage has been out-simplified the tories.

Ps told you all Jeremy Corbyn was shit

[Beren]

If the Tories are true to their motto of "party before country", they'll grant the SNP their referendum, and then rule forever over Little England. Lol.

I actually wonder whether how hard Boris and his government would campaign to convince Scotland to remain in the UK.

[Potemkin]

I actually wonder whether how hard Boris and his government would campaign to convince Scotland to remain in the UK.

I'm guessing 'not very' is the likely answer, Beren. Lol.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rich

Hey! Your signature doesn't tell the whole story of the US Army in World War II. That was the first major battle that the US engaged in against the Germans during World War II. Our soldiers were green at the time against the more battle hardened and experienced German soldiers. Our troops got better as they got more experience and were able to hold off the Germans in Bastagne, completely surrounded, cut off, no supplies, vastly out-manned, no air cover, outgunned, miserable weather, artillery barraged to smithereens and still prevailed. And let's not talk about Dunkirk.

[Atlantis]

Anyway, it's a done deal now. Johnson will sell out the hard core brexiteers and sign up to a soft brexit while gas lighting the public that it is a true brexit. In this new age of dodgy facts it will probably work.

That is a bold assumption to make. Signs are that Boris is going for a hard Brexit because he rejects regulatory alignment with the EU.

The idea of Singapore upon Thames is an article of faith with the Tories.

Downing Street denies Boris Johnson wants to secure softer Brexit deal after election landslide

Downing Street has poured cold water on suggestions that Boris Johnson may seek a softer form of Brexit after securing an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons.

Reports from Brussels suggest EU leaders are hopeful that Mr Johnson will sign up to a “level playing field” on standards and regulations now that he is no longer dependent on the votes of eurosceptic backbenchers in the European Research Group.

But the prime minister’s official spokesman told reporters that Mr Johnson’s aim for negotiations due to be concluded at the end of 2020 remains “a Canada-style free trade agreement with no political alignment”.
...
EU leaders including Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron are concerned that UK divergence from European standards and regulations would give British companies an unfair competitive advantage in continental markets.

Divergence was the issue over which Mr Johnson walked out of Theresa May's cabinet last year, as he believed her Chequers deal would tie the UK to following Brussels regulations in areas like workplace and environmental protections, animal welfare and public health.

[Code Rood]

Boris Johnson to pass anti-BDS law:
https://www.jpost.com/International/Bor ... ays-611044

Imagine my big surprise.

From the article:
"Antisemitism is an attack on the British way of life and British identity," he said.

Not sure how so-called ''anti-Semitism'' is an attack on the British way of life and British identity, but ok. The grooming gangs are an attack on the British way of life and British identity, not someone who criticizes and wants to boycott a foreign country.

[layman]

@Atlantis

I don't think boris is really much into that. The brexiteers were just a vehicle for him to get into power. Now he has a majority I think he will sell them out.

Notice the huge difference between the rhetoric and actions and pay close attention to that going forward.

In fact looking back, the may2.0 deal was more like May1.0 deal as it was the original/first one put forward.

A soft brexit sold as hard more suites Boris the individual so should be the most likely outcome. The majority of tories will be fine with it and most people don't read details.

it's not an assumption though. Ir is where I'd put my money, maybe 65% confident ....

[Beren]

Now he has a majority I think he will sell them out.

Let's guess whether whom or what Johnson will sell out first.

[noemon]

Johnson can indeed sell his deal as a hard-Brexit deal as it does not include a customs union. In this age of simplistic language and total Remainer stupidity that is more than enough to drive the point home. And it will be driven home by everyone, media, Tories, hard-Brexiteers, both Cummings and Farage are already on board.

On the very same note, this deal has cost the UK N. Ireland essentially and this will NOT be driven home because noone would ever consider the Tories as the anti-UK party even though they have sacrificed N.Ireland both in principle by putting a physical border between N. Ireland & the rest of the UK and in deed by losing the elections in N. Ireland for the first time in history to a pro-unification government that already has the constitutional power to leave without asking for permission, like Scotland for example.

Once again Boris is lucky that the media, but also other parties have kept totally mum on that but even if they hadnh't, the average Briton would not buy that oldboy Johnson is less of a patriot than any Labour leader and even more especially Jeremy Corbyn, however true it may be and regardless how many times it would have been said, none to date anyway.

Johnson will also now try to buy the former Labour voters to keep them forever and he will succeed in that too, once loyal people change, that's it for them because these people are not traditional swingers.

Obviously only a Blairite centrist Labour can reclaim government by swallowing up the Lib Dems, and once Brexit is delivered the Tories will turn into national heroes.