[Politics] NHS Protection Amendment

[drew]

Not seen anything on this so apologies if fixtures as it seems to have slipped under the radar.

The Tories, to a man and a woman, voted against an amendment introduced by the Lords, to protect the NHS in any trade deal. The Tories say there is no need for it as the NHS is safe in their hands yet if that is the case, what is the harm in enshrining that in law?

In front of the camera they are falling over themselves to praise the NHS staff but in Parliament they are voting to stab them in the back!

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-nhs-privatise-covid-b1790226.html

 

[clapham_gull]

Not seen anything on this so apologies if fixtures as it seems to have slipped under the radar.

The Tories, to a man and a woman, voted against an amendment introduced by the Lords, to protect the NHS in any trade deal. The Tories say there is no need for it as the NHS is safe in their hands yet if that is the case, what is the harm in enshrining that in law?

In front of the camera they are falling over themselves to praise the NHS staff but in Parliament they are voting to stab them in the back!

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-nhs-privatise-covid-b1790226.html

I think it's more tribal than anything else. They aren't going to vote for anything proposed by another party rather than it being an agenda to sell off the NHS.

However, what we do know, is that acting like that will come back to haunt you in the future. Those of us old enough know politics is cyclic and when this is over the electorate will look for someone to blame. I'd be amazed if this administration in its current form is in power after the next election. The post-pandemic inquiry will be scathing.

I say that as someone who fails to align themselves with any party.

It's far too early to predict, but I'd imagine we'll see form some form of coalition. Ideological extemism from either the left or right will be a very bad look at the next election.

 

[beorhthelm]

is this second or third attempt to insert a matter of health policy in to a trade bill? its never clear why a trade agreement hands over NHS to foreigners, or why this would be unquestionably bad. sure there will be organisations interested in providing health care service, but what if were to tell you they already can?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It's far too early to predict, but I'd imagine we'll see form some form of coalition. Ideological extemism from either the left or right will be a very bad look at the next election.

I'm not sure I agree. Indeed it's likely to be a hung parliament but I think the parties, well the three main parties, will be too diverse in policies to be able to form a coalition. Let's take the B word for example. The Lib Dems are very likely to campaign for rejoining the EU. The Tories exactly the opposite.So they are unlikely to make good bedfellows. Equally I think Labour are likely to just go along with being out of the EU so are unlikely to form an alliance with the Lib Dems. The result will probably be a minority government.

 

[drew]

I'm not sure I agree. Indeed it's likely to be a hung parliament but I think the parties, well the three main parties, will be too diverse in policies to be able to form a coalition. Let's take the B word for example. The Lib Dems are very likely to campaign for rejoining the EU. The Tories exactly the opposite.So they are unlikely to make good bedfellows. Equally I think Labour are likely to just go along with being out of the EU so are unlikely to form an alliance with the Lib Dems. The result will probably be a minority government.

I think after the hit the Libdems took for jumping into bed with Cameron there is no way they would make that mistake again especially when their ethos is more closely aligned to Labour than than the Conservatives. Yes they'd want to get back into the EU but in a coalition they would have to make some compromises.

 

[drew]

is this second or third attempt to insert a matter of health policy in to a trade bill? its never clear why a trade agreement hands over NHS to foreigners, or why this would be unquestionably bad. sure there will be organisations interested in providing health care service, but what if were to tell you they already can?

Don't quite follow what you're saying! The Tories claim the NHS isn't and never will be on the table when discussing a trade bill so, as I said, why not enshrine that in law? It's a bit like in 'A Few Good Men' with the Tories playing the part of Colonel Jessop. 'If you ordered them not to issue a code red then why did they?'

The amendment also protected the data held by the NHS so I'm guessing that will be a commodity up for grabs!

 

[Motogull]

I'm not sure I agree. Indeed it's likely to be a hung parliament but I think the parties, well the three main parties, will be too diverse in policies to be able to form a coalition. Let's take the B word for example. The Lib Dems are very likely to campaign for rejoining the EU. The Tories exactly the opposite.So they are unlikely to make good bedfellows. Equally I think Labour are likely to just go along with being out of the EU so are unlikely to form an alliance with the Lib Dems. The result will probably be a minority government.

And I'm not sure I agree.

COVID appears to be getting more troublesome every day medically and politically speaking. There might just be enough of the electorate that switched last time to vote the same way on the basis that Johnson never get a got fair chance to run the country then so give him another go.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm not sure I agree. Indeed it's likely to be a hung parliament but I think the parties, well the three main parties, will be too diverse in policies to be able to form a coalition. Let's take the B word for example. The Lib Dems are very likely to campaign for rejoining the EU. The Tories exactly the opposite.So they are unlikely to make good bedfellows. Equally I think Labour are likely to just go along with being out of the EU so are unlikely to form an alliance with the Lib Dems. The result will probably be a minority government.

Didn't I read that the Lib Dems are no longer backing re-join. I believe they are now saying we have to try and make the best of what we've got ?

*edit*

Brexit: Ed Davey says Lib Dems won't campaign to rejoin EU

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-ed-davey-says-lib-dems-wont-campaign-rejoin-eu-3103375

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Don't quite follow what you're saying! The Tories claim the NHS isn't and never will be on the table when discussing a trade bill so, as I said, why not enshrine that in law? It's a bit like in 'A Few Good Men' with the Tories playing the part of Colonel Jessop. 'If you ordered them not to issue a code red then why did they?'

The amendment also protected the data held by the NHS so I'm guessing that will be a commodity up for grabs!

Do you think other public services like the Police or Fire service are equally at risk and likely to be sold off in a trade deal and therefore also need a law introduced to prevent this from happening too? or is this worry over the NHS being sold more political scaremongering and a good way to wind up people against a Government when it's as likely to be a thing as, say, the Tories banning London taxis from being painted black, or London buses Red.

Now i mention that, do we need urgent new laws introduced to save these beloved colour schemes for London taxis and buses just in case the Government are planning those bans after all, and therefore if no legislation is introduced, or passed, it's proof positive that they are intending to do this, and soon. Or do we think it just won't happen and therefore making a law would just be a waste of time?

Ahh, you could argue though that as there is no legislation in place to protect the colour schemes, it's proof positive that the 'evil' Tories mean to bring about this ban, and soon. Otherwise what's the harm in making it law to protect them and if they don't it's surely all the proof we need that the 'evil' Tories are clearly intending to ban these colour schemes, the b@#$&+£s

 

[beorhthelm]

The amendment also protected the data held by the NHS so I'm guessing that will be a commodity up for grabs!

good. sharing of medical data is vital in medical research and development of drugs and treatments. how unhelpful would it be to prohibit Pfizer from doing trails or gaining field data for Covid?

 

[drew]

good. sharing of medical data is vital in medical research and development of drugs and treatments. how unhelpful would it be to prohibit Pfizer from doing trails or gaining field data for Covid?

Where does it say just medical data?

 

[drew]

Do you think other public services like the Police or Fire service are equally at risk and likely to be sold off in a trade deal and therefore also need a law introduced to prevent this from happening too? or is this worry over the NHS being sold more political scaremongering and a good way to wind up people against a Government when it's as likely to be a thing as, say, the Tories banning London taxis from being painted black, or London buses Red.

Now i mention that, do we need urgent new laws introduced to save these beloved colour schemes for London taxis and buses just in case the Government are planning those bans after all, and therefore if no legislation is introduced, or passed, it's proof positive that they are intending to do this, and soon. Or do we think it just won't happen and therefore making a law would just be a waste of time?

Ahh, you could argue though that as there is no legislation in place to protect the colour schemes, it's proof positive that the 'evil' Tories mean to bring about this ban, and soon. Otherwise what's the harm in making it law to protect them and if they don't it's surely all the proof we need that the 'evil' Tories are clearly intending to ban these colour schemes, the b@#$&+£s

Get over yourself.

 

[Blue3]

It's simple the Tories see any services run directly by the state for the benifit of the people as an ideological anathema, just look at the ten years of austerity after the 2010 global crash it did little in resolving the national debt but was a great smoke screen behind which all public services were squeezed and squeezed I can recall one senior Manager in the NHS using the phrase squeeze them until the pips squeak and by pips he ment the staff, if you treasure the NHS then please never vote Conservative

 

[Wardy's twin]

Do you think other public services like the Police or Fire service are equally at risk and likely to be sold off in a trade deal and therefore also need a law introduced to prevent this from happening too? or is this worry over the NHS being sold more political scaremongering and a good way to wind up people against a Government when it's as likely to be a thing as, say, the Tories banning London taxis from being painted black, or London buses Red.

Now i mention that, do we need urgent new laws introduced to save these beloved colour schemes for London taxis and buses just in case the Government are planning those bans after all, and therefore if no legislation is introduced, or passed, it's proof positive that they are intending to do this, and soon. Or do we think it just won't happen and therefore making a law would just be a waste of time?

Ahh, you could argue though that as there is no legislation in place to protect the colour schemes, it's proof positive that the 'evil' Tories mean to bring about this ban, and soon. Otherwise what's the harm in making it law to protect them and if they don't it's surely all the proof we need that the 'evil' Tories are clearly intending to ban these colour schemes, the b@#$&+£s

So you compare the NHS to London Taxi colour schemes , hope you don't need to have some medical treatment at some time.

It's called putting your money where your mouth is, so if the Tories say there is no threat to the NHS then it surely does no harm to reassure people by enshrining it law.

Mind you given the way the current government perceive the law and treaties then I guess it would be worth FA anyway.

 

[Wardy's twin]

good. sharing of medical data is vital in medical research and development of drugs and treatments. how unhelpful would it be to prohibit Pfizer from doing trails or gaining field data for Covid?

Sharing of anonymous medical data will never be the issue , it is the sharing of personal data that is of concern.

 

[beorhthelm]

Sharing of anonymous medical data will never be the issue , it is the sharing of personal data that is of concern.

having personal data is very difficult, a lot of restrictions. its rarely much more useful than anonymous data for research, except in specific studies run locally anyway.

 

[Wardy's twin]

having personal data is very difficult, a lot of restrictions. its rarely much more useful than anonymous data for research, except in specific studies run locally anyway.

unless you want to market your services like new hips, etc.

 

[drew]

having personal data is very difficult, a lot of restrictions. its rarely much more useful than anonymous data for research, except in specific studies run locally anyway.

You're picking out specific purposes to suit your argument. Would you be happy if your data was shared for the purposes of marketing? A company buys your data in order that they can promote some dodgy health remedy?

If the NHS is protected before we negotiate deals then the other party know full well it's not on the table. The Tories will now say that if they had to sell out the NHS it's because not to sacrifice it was a deal breaker so they had no choice!!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

So you compare the NHS to London Taxi colour schemes , hope you don't need to have some medical treatment at some time.

It's called putting your money where your mouth is, so if the Tories say there is no threat to the NHS then it surely does no harm to reassure people by enshrining it law.

Mind you given the way the current government perceive the law and treaties then I guess it would be worth FA anyway.

Comparing the importance of the NHS to importance of London taxi or bus colour schemes....No
Comparing the two in terms of actually being part of any Government's plans, meaning either will actually happen and therefore legislation is required to prevent this ...yes

The NHS is an emotive subject and therefore bound to provoke a strong reaction so no wonder it's used to scaremonger and stoke up a fear over something that isn't likely to happen (the point being that the colour ban for London buses or taxi's are equally unlikely)

Yet the tone of the original post is that the Government are actively considering selling it off (political suicide for any political party) and only this legislation can prevent this and without it, the NHS is doomed. - Which is on a par with Trump's claim that the election was stolen by the Democrats, or the claims that his election win in 2016 meant a nuclear war started by him will undoubtedly happen (both preposterous claims with no real basis in fact, li8ke the claim that the NHS is about to be lost to some trade deal)

Their proof that a sell off is imminent is the failure of the legislation to pass to prevent it (basically 2+2 = 5) but by the same logic, there is no legislation to stop an imminent ban on the certain colours being banned in place, so does that mean that a Government ban for that is also imminent?

Do we need countless laws put through Parliament on any little thing just in case some Government ever plans to do something other see as a bad move, how many millions of laws would that amount to? is it necessary? and are there more important things that should be the main focus right now, like... responding to a pandemic ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Comparing the importance of the NHS to importance of London taxi or bus colour schemes....No
Comparing the two in terms of actually being part of any Government's plans, meaning either will actually happen and therefore legislation is required to prevent this ...yes

The NHS is an emotive subject and therefore bound to provoke a strong reaction so no wonder it's used to scaremonger and stoke up a fear over something that isn't likely to happen (the point being that the colour ban for London buses or taxi's are equally unlikely)

Yet the tone of the original post is that the Government are actively considering selling it off (political suicide for any political party) and only this legislation can prevent this and without it, the NHS is doomed. - Which is on a par with Trump's claim that the election was stolen by the Democrats, or the claims that his election win in 2016 meant a nuclear war started by him will undoubtedly happen (both preposterous claims with no real basis in fact, li8ke the claim that the NHS is about to be lost to some trade deal)

Their proof that a sell off is imminent is the failure of the legislation to pass to prevent it (basically 2+2 = 5) but by the same logic, there is no legislation to stop an imminent ban on the certain colours being banned in place, so does that mean that a Government ban for that is also imminent?

Do we need countless laws put through Parliament on any little thing just in case some Government ever plans to do something other see as a bad move, how many millions of laws would that amount to? is it necessary? and are there more important things that should be the main focus right now, like... responding to a pandemic ?

Yes, it would be political suicide to sell it off in one go, but it will be done one small step at a time. It’s the boiling frog story,
You mentioned the police earlier, but the Tories have already tried to privatise the Probation service.