The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
In what way is it racist to want less immigration?
Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
In what way is it racist to want less immigration?
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
Looks like it might be an actual policy soon
No doubt a long-considered, carefully thought out policy and nothing to do with an unthinking comment about Owen Smith at all, oh no.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
How about the list of policies Bernie gave above? Which of those show he's thick?
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Ah ok you mean this one:
What's wrong with funding medical research through the MRC rather than drugs companies? Sounds like it would be incredibly profitable to me given many drugs companies' profits. It would also reduce the huge drugs costs to the NHS.
You'd also be able to choose which research to fund rather than just having the research that will be most profitable to drugs companies. I read somewhere that many people are suffering in poor countries because they can't afford high drugs costs so it's not worth the drugs companies putting in the research.
What's wrong with funding medical research through the MRC rather than drugs companies? Sounds like it would be incredibly profitable to me given many drugs companies' profits. It would also reduce the huge drugs costs to the NHS.
You'd also be able to choose which research to fund rather than just having the research that will be most profitable to drugs companies. I read somewhere that many people are suffering in poor countries because they can't afford high drugs costs so it's not worth the drugs companies putting in the research.
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
There's nothing terrible about any of those policies (well, I don't know what People's Quantative Easing really means in practice), save that buying out existing PFI contracts is likely more trouble and expense than it is worth. Just don't enter into new ones.
I think voting is still open for the NEC?
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
He's so thick that he's got policies that even you don't understand, then
Bernie put a question mark after buying them out - just said 'getting rid of' which could mean not entering into more. But even buying them out if he could do that at a reasonable cost:
PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years
Another one that Bernie didn't mention is renationalising railways, which seems eminently sensible to me if you could do that at reasonable cost, too.
It's the policies that are important, not all the media shit.
Hasn't Corbyn said he will get rid of WCA, possibly benefit sanctions?, sure i saw that somewhere.
I would hope so.
maomao
普費斯
It means printing new money to spend on infrastructure rather than printing new money to chuck at the financial services industry as we have been doing. The economic effects should be similar (preventing deflation, easing debt through inflation) but we get roads, bridges and trains (and jobs) out of it rather than bankers putting it all up their noses or into offshore funds.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
That quote you gave missed out this bit: "but should be funded through the Medical Research Council" which is just dishonest (not by you but by the guy quoting him) because it made it look like there was going to be no funding at all.
Apparently "The world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies between them spent just under £50 billion – 100 times as much as the MRC." (The NHS would be crippled without big pharma | Coffee House)
So that's half the UK's NHS spending, and apparently it's quite profitable.
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
I'm typing this with an imperfectly straight face, you understand, but £209bn over 35 years isn't all that much really
Just don't put the operating contracts out to tender as they expire, bring them in house.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I'm typing this with an imperfectly straight face, you understand, but £209bn over 35 years isn't all that much really
Two years' complete funding of the NHS, and so 50 billion to buy them out is nothing at all
Yes indeed.
red & green
Well-Known Member
YouSir
Retired from Urban
It is, a lot of people voted on the first few days though and besides, you can't replace someone on a coherent slate when votes are already being cast.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
They would come in house anyway, that is how PFI works.
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
The rail operator contracts are much shorter term than the typical PFI ones - 10 years against 25. Rail renationalisation could be completed by any two-term government willing to do so, and probably be de-facto done by a one-term one, depending how the contract end dates fall.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
And great to see the *real* liberal left sticking up for private drugs companies instead of having the nasty inefficient state taking the profits instead
As my gf used to sing to me after I'd made some sharp comment about someone:
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
You'd also think that removing the cushy rail contracts from private companies might cause a wee drop in the share pricess and free up a lot of rolling stock that could be bought up cheap
YouSir
Retired from Urban
The less talented half of a mediocre coming duo. How proud he must be. Been a twat for a long time though.
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
And great to see the *real* liberal left sticking up for private drugs companies instead of having the nasty inefficient state taking the profits instead
Lots of risks in drug development too though.
coley
Well-Known Member
Re-nationalising the railways shouldn't be that costly,just keep the contracts in public ownership rather than flogging them off to incompetent private companies( southern being a good example) the east coast line made a considerable profit for the GP before it was flogged off to Branson.He's so thick that he's got policies that even you don't understand, then
Bernie put a question mark after buying them out - just said 'getting rid of' which could mean not entering into more. But even buying them out if he could do that at a reasonable cost:
PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years
Another one that Bernie didn't mention is renationalising railways, which seems eminently sensible to me if you could do that at reasonable cost, too.
It's the policies that are important, not all the media shit.
Oops, hadn't seen the posts already airing these ideas
coley
Well-Known Member
Come the revolution,his sort will be decorating the streets, not sweeping them
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
True, but roll enough dice you'll get a fair few sixes.
Pfizer alone made gross profits of $40 billion this last year (I think, anyway, finance isn't my strong subject)
Financial Statements for Pfizer Inc. - Google Finance
That's a third of the yearly NHS cost?
coley
Well-Known Member
It's odd that so many on the right can convince themselves that fairly normal practices such as state owned railways and utilities are one step away from full blown revolution,some of the crap posted about Corbyn has him as the embodiment of every left wing dictator that ever breathed.You'd also think that removing the cushy rail contracts from private companies might cause a wee drop in the share pricess and free up a lot of rolling stock that could be bought up cheap
Cid
Proper break this time
Profits in big pharma can be somewhat shady though. I'd think part of the point in nationalising would be to properly regulate and publish trials, reward well-conducted research that leads nowhere, not try and find uses for drugs simply because there's a lot of money invested in their development... It would also be a colossal undertaking unless you could simply take over an existing pharma giant.
Similar threads
