Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
The way I see it, whatever your current political preferences are left or right, the election bribes on offer will include a don't bother reading (as usual<doh>) the small print terms of unsustainable high interest borrowing from the IMF. A very short term buy it now then pay for it much later credit card high interest scam which as usual fooks us all in the long term.

Politics is all about the short term fix then leave it for the next generation to sort out. We have been in this endless cycle for way to long now imo!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr and BobbyD
Uber_Hoop said:
There’s nothing wrong with US pharma’s ambition, but it’s the government’s responsibility to minimise the impact on patients.

Like you say, Stan’s input would be interesting. I’m not clear how Brexit would or could change the way in which the NHS acquires supplies compared with today. Does it have to operate within an EU framework at the moment?
Click to expand...

There are two parts to the approval of medicines in the UK. The first stage is gaining a license from the relevant regulator. This essentially deems the product to be safe, with the effects of the medicine outweighing the potential side effects. This could be changed drastically by Brexit, or could remain broadly unchanged, more below. The second stage is gaining approval from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), who assess whether the medicine is cost-effective and approve or deny the use in the NHS in England. (There is a separate body, the Scottish Medicines Consortium who do the cost-effectiveness assessment in Scotland).

The first stage could change significantly as a result of Brexit. The UK has its own regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who are responsible for authorising medicines which do not pass through the central European Medicines Authorisation (EMA) process. The EMA relies heavily on the member-state authorities like the MHRA to do a lot of the leg work, and until Brexit the MHRA did 25% of the EMA's assessments. This figure has essentially wound down to zero with the EMA leaving London and relocating to Amsterdam. The future of this process is entirely dependent on the future trade deal agree or not agreed with the EU.

We could end up with essentially the status quo (which is what industry is lobbying for), but with the MHRA playing a much diminished role. We could end up not being allowed to take EMA guidance and expect the MHRA to do all assessments, but this would require a huge investment in their capabilities, and it may be difficult to recruit the right staff as many of the required experts have left the country with the EMA, and companies have quietly relocated regulatory experts out of the UK in many cases too. This is where the US companies come in - if the UK does have a standalone regulatory process, there would be potential (and perhaps requirement) for the UK to offer a regulatory environment that 'competes' with the EMA to encourage companies to license their medicines in the UK at the same time as the EU/USA. Otherwise the UK will be down the queue behind the EU, Japan, USA and get medicines 2-5 years later than these countries. One way to compete would be to offer longer patents, so that companies can benefit from exclusivity for longer. This delays the entry of generic of biosimilar medicines, resulting in higher costs for the NHS for a few years.

The cost-effective analysis conducted by NICE is not expected to change in the wake of Brexit. As such, despite the potential for companies to benefit from patents for longer described above, their medicines will still have to pass the challenging cost-effectiveness tests, and are hardly likely to break the bank.

There is also a cap on the total medicines budget in the NHS called the Voluntary Pricing and Access Scheme which limits the total growth of medicines spend to about 2% per annum, less than the cost of health inflation. I'll stop there, as I'm sure you're all asleep by now [in both senses].
 
Uber_Hoop said:
Anti-semitism allegations just won’t go away, will they? All Corbyn has to do is apologise for the incidents within his party, but he doesn’t. What else would any reasonable person conclude?

I think the fact that Johnson won’t release the Russian Interference report is wrong and encourages one to draw certain conclusions. Will our residents lefties not admit the same over this?

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...

Scots Tory candidate suspended over alleged 'anti-Muslim language' - Daily Record https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scots-tory-candidate-suspended-over-20973597

Tory Aberdeen candidate suspended over Holocaust tweets | Politics | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politic...date-ryan-houghton-suspended-holocaust-tweets
 
ELLERS said:
I am surprised the lack of debate regarding the MRP poll results. This is the nearest we will get to the election outcome. No Brexit party seats, Labour to lose 51 seats and Tories getting a big majority.
Click to expand...

Does surprise me. I've spoken to a number of people, and I'd fall into this category too, who can't bring themselves to vote for either of the two largest parties, so I'm surprised the Lib Dems and Greens haven't come out stronger.
 
daverangers said:
Does surprise me. I've spoken to a number of people, and I'd fall into this category too, who can't bring themselves to vote for either of the two largest parties, so I'm surprised the Lib Dems and Greens haven't come out stronger.
Click to expand...
People turned off by lib dems Brexit stance.... It's backfired, especially when they started changing it (when they were down in polls). Greens have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the Limps. Their vote would have gone up quite a bit... especially with all the Ruperts supporting Greata.
Agree though in that no one comes out smelling of roses.
 
ELLERS said:
People turned off by lib dems Brexit stance.... It's backfired, especially when they started changing it (when they were down in polls). Greens have shot themselves in the foot by supporting the Limps. Their vote would have gone up quite a bit... especially with all the Ruperts supporting Greata.
Agree though in that no one comes out smelling of roses.
Click to expand...

True...none of the main parties are that appealing, which worries me as its the kind of situation that leaves an opportunity for more extremist parties to gain a foothold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ELLERS
daverangers said:
True...none of the main parties are that appealing, which worries me as its the kind of situation that leaves an opportunity for more extremist parties to gain a foothold.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about extremist parties as the polls don’t show a rise in the minor fringe lot.
Tories will win by quite a bit, Labour will be down as will Libs/Brexit parties. I don’t know if Farage has played a blinder or got egg on his face? All he wants is Brexit and not standing against the Tories has won them the election (IMO). Although he wanted to hold the balance of power so he could tell the Tories what to do (Brexit), that won’t happen.
I said a while back that remainer Tories like my Mrs would be voting Tory whatever. This was confirmed in the MRP poll.
Labour were never going to win with Corbyn at the helm. The libs should have gone with that smooth talking Chukka instead of the annoying Swinson
The biggest losers are the Greens who would have got quite a few new voters. Standing with the Limps was stupid.
For me... I will be pleased to see the end of the 21 Tories, Bercow and many MPs who went against their constituents. Especially Grieve,Lee,Cooper,Letwin and Co. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
Quite Possibly Raving said:
There are two parts to the approval of medicines in the UK. The first stage is gaining a license from the relevant regulator. This essentially deems the product to be safe, with the effects of the medicine outweighing the potential side effects. This could be changed drastically by Brexit, or could remain broadly unchanged, more below. The second stage is gaining approval from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), who assess whether the medicine is cost-effective and approve or deny the use in the NHS in England. (There is a separate body, the Scottish Medicines Consortium who do the cost-effectiveness assessment in Scotland).

The first stage could change significantly as a result of Brexit. The UK has its own regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), who are responsible for authorising medicines which do not pass through the central European Medicines Authorisation (EMA) process. The EMA relies heavily on the member-state authorities like the MHRA to do a lot of the leg work, and until Brexit the MHRA did 25% of the EMA's assessments. This figure has essentially wound down to zero with the EMA leaving London and relocating to Amsterdam. The future of this process is entirely dependent on the future trade deal agree or not agreed with the EU.

We could end up with essentially the status quo (which is what industry is lobbying for), but with the MHRA playing a much diminished role. We could end up not being allowed to take EMA guidance and expect the MHRA to do all assessments, but this would require a huge investment in their capabilities, and it may be difficult to recruit the right staff as many of the required experts have left the country with the EMA, and companies have quietly relocated regulatory experts out of the UK in many cases too. This is where the US companies come in - if the UK does have a standalone regulatory process, there would be potential (and perhaps requirement) for the UK to offer a regulatory environment that 'competes' with the EMA to encourage companies to license their medicines in the UK at the same time as the EU/USA. Otherwise the UK will be down the queue behind the EU, Japan, USA and get medicines 2-5 years later than these countries. One way to compete would be to offer longer patents, so that companies can benefit from exclusivity for longer. This delays the entry of generic of biosimilar medicines, resulting in higher costs for the NHS for a few years.

The cost-effective analysis conducted by NICE is not expected to change in the wake of Brexit. As such, despite the potential for companies to benefit from patents for longer described above, their medicines will still have to pass the challenging cost-effectiveness tests, and are hardly likely to break the bank.

There is also a cap on the total medicines budget in the NHS called the Voluntary Pricing and Access Scheme which limits the total growth of medicines spend to about 2% per annum, less than the cost of health inflation. I'll stop there, as I'm sure you're all asleep by now [in both senses].
Click to expand...


Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quite Possibly Raving and kiwiqpr
The bumbling liar Johnson is refusing to be interviewed by Andrew Neil, fearing a bigger mauling than Corbyn got.

Neil should 'empty chair' him.
 
ELLERS said:
This is the problem.... if they paint the place, tidy up and hide patients Boris will visit and see it looking okay? :1980_boogie_down: This clearly comes from someone with an agenda.
Click to expand...

It's from an NHS doctor, so yes they do have an agenda - protecting the NHS. Johnson doesn't visit hospitals to see how they're getting on, it's for photo opportunities. I'd love to see NHS staff telling him exactly how they felt, but it wouldn't get reported on MSM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo and ELLERS
Stroller said:
It's from an NHS doctor, so yes they do have an agenda - protecting the NHS. Johnson doesn't visit hospitals to see how they're getting on, it's for photo opportunities. I'd love to see NHS staff telling him exactly how they felt, but it wouldn't get reported on MSM.
Click to expand...
I agree but why post this crap unless he wanted to make Johnson look responsible for all the NHS problems? People forget we have an ageing population, we have had record numbers of immigration and our Drs and Nurses are being poached by Canada/Australia/NZ for better money and lifestyle.
The NHS is in crisis but even under Labour they closed down plenty of hospital units. Even where I live the baby special care unit was closed under Blair and the local hospitals were always under pressure. Thing is a government has a set amount of money and unlike Labour promising everything, spending 4 times the amount they have ( last week) the Tories will need to address this properly or there will be major problems.
After Brexit is sorted I believe the NHS should get a bit of relief as we won’t have as many people coming from abroad, using it. The Tories are bringing out plans to stop the abuse of the NHS (which they believe is happening).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back