Forum menu
Corbyn explaining how the UK under Labour will adopt Indian standards for intellectual property rights. Why wasn’t he asked how Germany, France and most other EU countries already prescribe the drugs that the NHS seemingly can’t afford?
It won’t matter after we’ve left EU, as the UK will be a third wave country when it comes to new drug submissions. US/EU/JPN are first wave if you wondered.
I’ve tried to get to the bottom of the “publicly owned generic drugs manufacturer” policy, but can’t work out how it would actually work, or its knock on effects. Have you? Get us all up to speed if you have… pretty please…
There is two different aspects to this
Once drugs are out of patent anyone can make them. Some drugs are able to be made as generics as they are out of patent but are not done by the commercial generic makers so a state run generic manufacturer could make them with a potential saving.
The second point as I understand it is that some drugs are still in patent, have been developed with state aid but then are sold at massive profit. Corbyn wants to be able to make those drugs generically.
My guess is that when state money is used to develop drugs then Corbyn wants the state to retain the patent - so the company that develops it can still make profit from non UK sales but not from UK sales
More detail is needed on this tho for sure. I cannot see how he can suggest breaking patent
thats what I took from the speech.
The bit thats missing from this is that community pharmacies need to be able to use " generic substitution"
All doctors are supposed to use generic names when prescribing. for 99% of drugs the generic is identical in all ways. ( there are some exclusions around absorbtion and delivery rates ie nifedipine)
Hospital pharmacies use generic substitution so if a hospital doctor writes Valium on the prescription the hospital pharmacist does not have to dispense valium but the cheapest genric diazepam ( the same drug). However community pharmacists cannot do this so if a GP writes a script for valium then the pharmacist has to dispense Valium not the much cheaper generic version.
Overall the NHS actually does a pretty good job on this. The NHS negotiates a wholesale price for drugs and this is often much lower than the open market price for the same drug. there are exceptions. some drugs cost a US patient 100x as much as it cost the NHS. Of course this is something the US want to stop.
Finally India and other countries do not break international patent law on this. They have a legal exemption that allows them to produce generic versions of patented drugs in a limited number of cases for home use only
However community pharmacists cannot do this so if a GP writes a script for valium then the pharmacist has to dispense Valium not the much cheaper generic version.
Most GP surgeries now have a prescribing pharmacist who will spend a bit of his or her time reviewing 'scripts , and GP's can make money offsetting the cost of generics against patent, so while a pat might get a patent for their first couple of 'scripts they're generally moved onto generics pretty quickly if here's one available.
I’ve said it before, but the miracle of the nhs is that we get so much for so little. As for universities and discovering drugs, companies pay handsomely for the IP developed by such institutions. More often a university will spin out a company who will develop a technology or tool compound. This is licensed by pharma and developed into drugs and then (perhaps) medicines. You might like to look at the history of Cambridge Antibody Therapeutics and the MRC and adalimumab.
But as I said, why do other EU countries see fit to prioritise new medicines that the NHS cannot? Pricing is bespoke for every market Nd country. The UK is not a significant market for new medicines.
BTW as for a generics company, will never happen. The regulation associated with manufacturing will prevent this. Just setting up a new facility to EMA standards is a massive massive outgoing. “We can just make our own insulin” was one call from Brexiteers. Ok we’ll have our own MHRA standards and we can lower them but we won’t.
Most GP surgeries now have a prescribing pharmacist who will spend a bit of his or her time reviewing ‘scripts , and GP’s can make money offsetting the cost of generics against patent, so while a pat might get a patent for their first couple of ‘scripts they’re generally moved onto generics pretty quickly if here’s one available.
There's a lot of work like this being done in CCGs too
So who now still believes Corbyn when he says that he voted remain in the referendum ?
So who now still believes Corbyn when he says that he voted remain in the referendum ?
Me. You think he lied about it and campaigned at Remain events as cover?
you think he lied about it and campaigned at Remain events as cover?
yep 🙂
plus he was pretty absent from most of the remain events according to Cameron
Corbyn is a man of principle.
He abstained.
according to Cameron
Really? That's your reliable source? Maybe see if Boris will confirm it.
Turnerguy - corbyn refused to share a platform with tories - but he made more anti bexit campaign speeches than anyone else and spoke to more people at public events than anyone else.
Me. You think he lied about it and campaigned at Remain events as cover?
"Lied" is a bit of a weird way to put it. As Leader you put aside your own views and advocate the case you need to. I don't think that's lying, if it was you could never lead a party without lying unless you agreed with every single scrap of policy you'd have to advocate, it's impossible. Collective responsibility bind all front benchers in the same way.
However JC *is* a Brexiteer of some 40 years standing and his campaigning in the Ref was woeful. Alan Johnson was Chair of Labour's Remain campaign. It was his job to get JC and McDonnell out campaigning and and he couldn't get Corbyn or McDonnell to engage with it at all, he said they just viewed the EU as Neo Liberal club for rich nations and wanted nothing to do with it. Even when they were speaking advocating Remain they couldn't help but list a catalogue of flaws in the EU.
Here in his own words:
There are plenty of things the EU requires that JC finds abhorrent - the "Fourth Rail Package" will come into force from 2023 and forces the private sector and market competition into EU railways (which are mostly state owned outside the EU). Article 88 strictly curtails state subsidy. Free movement of capital and people - pretty hard to tax wealthy people if they and their money can move about at will! The EU is full on neo-Liberal, it's about as far from Socialism as you can get.
So yeah, Corbyn's been a Brexiteer for 40 years and still is.
Ironically I read a Biography of Boris years back which claimed in spite of his journalistic attacks he was deeply pro-EU (which given his Father/family background you would expect.) Which totally supports Cameron's claim that he's a Remainer who campaigned for Leave 'cos it would help his career. Boris was openly undecided about which side he'd support in the Ref until the last minute.
So I think the leaders of our two biggest parties were each making a case contrary to their own personal inclinations.
I'm staggered that anyone is unaware of Corbyn/McDonnel/Abbot/Skinners's views on the EU, they've been spouting this stuff for 40 years.
On the subject of Skinner, there's a succinct article here that spells out why socialists want to leave the EU:
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/eu-opposition-socialism-why-i-voted-against-every-european-treaty-dennis-skinner
TYPO: "(which are mostly state owned outside the EU)." I meant mostly state owned in EU countries apart from the UK where our railways are already largely privately run.
Lied” is a bit of a weird way to put it.
No it isn't. He said he voted Remain.
There are plenty of things the EU requires that JC finds abhorrent – the “Fourth Rail Package” will come into force from 2023 and forces the private sector and market competition into EU railways (which are mostly state owned outside the EU). Article 88 strictly curtails state subsidy. Free movement of capital and people – pretty hard to tax wealthy people if they and their money can move about at will! The EU is full on neo-Liberal, it’s about as far from Socialism as you can get.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Railway_Package
It doesn't force privitisation, it forces network operators to consider private ventures but if state owned railways are actually cheaper than private firms - what is there to worry?
Turnerguy – corbyn refused to share a platform with tories
typically mature approach - he is just a student politician that has managed to keep that gig going for his whole career.
he said they just viewed the EU as Neo Liberal club for rich nations...The EU is full on neo-Liberal, it’s about as far from Socialism as you can get.
it is - I am surprised there is so much support for it here. Seems hypocritical to me.
I’m staggered that anyone is unaware of Corbyn/McDonnel/Abbot/Skinners’s views on the EU, they’ve been spouting this stuff for 40 years.
yep, it is like all the people supporting Armstrong for so long.
No it isn’t. He said he voted Remain.
like he said that he had never met anyone from the IRA, or supported them.
Time to fire up that biogenerics company...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49831726
No new mechanisms for migraine in over 20 years. But TJ you will be pleased to know a Scottish patient can be treated. Just not England and Wales.
he said they just viewed the EU as Neo Liberal club for rich nations…
The EU is full on neo-Liberal, it’s about as far from Socialism as you can get.
it is – I am surprised there is so much support for it here. Seems hypocritical to me.
Plot twist, STW members largely wish to seize the means of MTB-production direction to resemble a LLS version of the Moskvič car aesthetic along with low cost, yet manufactured entirely by the People’s Republic of China.
‘All for one, and one for all...’ 😉
he is just a student politician that has managed to keep that gig going for his whole career.
Are you auditioning for Binners' job?
Needs to post a lot more hilarious pictures to have a chance at that job
like he said that he had never met anyone from the IRA, or supported them.
A good article by the ever-brilliant Marina Hyde of her visit to the Labour conference
Dominic Cummings promised to wreck Labours party conference - he didn’t need to
A good article by the ever-brilliant Marina Hyde
Just superb though Christ it makes me weep. Please read it Corbyn supporters.
There is two different aspects to this
Once drugs are out of patent anyone can make them. Some drugs are able to be made as generics as they are out of patent but are not done by the commercial generic makers so a state run generic manufacturer could make them with a potential saving.
The second point as I understand it is that some drugs are still in patent, have been developed with state aid but then are sold at massive profit. Corbyn wants to be able to make those drugs generically.
My guess is that when state money is used to develop drugs then Corbyn wants the state to retain the patent – so the company that develops it can still make profit from non UK sales but not from UK sales
Britain contributes only a small portion of the entire contribution of world governments and NGOs to the research done by pharaceuatical companies - as others have pointed out, Corbyn wants to seize any drug independent of whether it has had majority British funding in it's R&D phase. Majority funding of drug development, through it's entire lifecycle up until market approval is very rarely, if ever funded by the contributions of one state. Furthermore, if they are - and you then seized the patent from the company you initially contratced, who is going to work with you apart from your newly state seized GSK?
It is a terrible idea unless needed for a dire public health emergency and will see to it that private pharmaceutical companies leave the UK and do not expose their patents to the UK market. That means less drugs avbailable for you and I.
Scientific research operates best on a global collaborative model, which is the antithesis of Corbyns left wing nationalist world view. If we want cheaper drugs, we have to push for better and more effective supranational bodies that can direct healthcare research, funding and costs to the global community (those in poorer nations should get a better price than we do), commitments to increasing academic co-operation and exchange programs and we need increased visa/work mobility for the specialists who work in these fields. We do not need state owned unprofitable pharmaceuatical or biologics manufacturers with crown protection like BPL had.
But yeah something something.... #MEGA!
At a fringe event later that evening, it was mentioned that Jeremy Corbyn’s approval rating is minus 60, the worst for an opposition leader since comparable polling records began. “So what?” called someone in the audience.
John 11:35
Labour MP on QT tonight confirming the only question you’re asked when joining the shadow cabinet:
Do you think Jeremy is brilliant?
Not ‘can you actually vocalise a coherent sentence’? Or ‘arse’ elbow, can you point out which is which?’
Coming up to an election, it might be a good idea to get your actual talent on the front bench, rather than sideline them all because they’re insufficiently praising of the glorious leader
Britain contributes only a small portion of the entire contribution of world governments and NGOs to the research done by pharaceuatical companies – as others have pointed out, Corbyn wants to seize any drug independent of whether it has had majority British funding in it’s R&D phase. Majority funding of drug development, through it’s entire lifecycle up until market approval is very rarely, if ever funded by the contributions of one state. Furthermore, if they are – and you then seized the patent from the company you initially contratced, who is going to work with you apart from your newly state seized GSK?
It is a terrible idea unless needed for a dire public health emergency and will see to it that private pharmaceutical companies leave the UK and do not expose their patents to the UK market. That means less drugs avbailable for you and I.
Scientific research operates best on a global collaborative model, which is the antithesis of Corbyns left wing nationalist world view. If we want cheaper drugs, we have to push for better and more effective supranational bodies that can direct healthcare research, funding and costs to the global community (those in poorer nations should get a better price than we do), commitments to increasing academic co-operation and exchange programs and we need increased visa/work mobility for the specialists who work in these fields. We do not need state owned unprofitable pharmaceuatical or biologics manufacturers with crown protection like BPL had.
But yeah something something…. #MEGA!
I think in the current political landscape, post truth or whatever the term is, it's more about the intent and big picture impetus than a speech laying down any realistic policy. IOW if you ignore the drivel of what JC actually said on this issue (which I agree would shutter the UK pharma industry overnight), and see it more as labour prepared to grasp the nettle of pharmacoeconomics, then it was a reasonable pitch IMHO. No question that this is a prime societal issue of our time, it's extremely challenging, and I don't recall anyone else putting it front and centre in a conference speech.
Please read it Corbyn supporters.
It did sum up discussion on here about Labour’s conference with spooky accuracy.
I think in the current political landscape, post truth or whatever the term is, it’s more about the intent and big picture impetus than a speech laying down any realistic policy. IOW if you ignore the drivel of what JC actually said on this issue (which I agree would shutter the UK pharma industry overnight), and see it more as labour prepared to grasp the nettle of pharmacoeconomics, then it was a reasonable pitch IMHO. No question that this is a prime societal issue of our time, it’s extremely challenging, and I don’t recall anyone else putting it front and centre in a conference speech.
Drug supply doesn't need hair brained politicians and their party true believers who know **** all about science, drug development or healthcare economics pushing change. We need NGO's, scientists and industry experts pushing quietly behind the scenes for change - which they already are. I don't believe for as second that Labour at a grass roots level want a nuanced debate about the pharmaceutical industry or listen to experts when their views disagree with their ideology, looking at the twitter accounts of their more prolific influencers. You don't announce a thoughtful review of healthcare by announcing to the world that you're going to go after the big nasty people by seizing their property. That is fighting talk, not intellectual talk.
Anyone involved in drug development can't vote for them based on the simple fact that we shouldn't vote Labour and wait to see what this attempt to understand pharmacoeconomics when they get into power - it's simply too risky.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/10038528258?lang=en
https://twitter.com/whithealth/status/908996658070990848
Reds under the bed. They gone get ya money!
Time to fire up that biogenerics company…
NICE's final decision, published on its website, said there was "substantial uncertainty in the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of erenumab".
It's not effective from a public health perspective and it would be a waste of time firing up a generics company to make it for UK consumers - the price would skyrocket due to the fact that Amgen can produce and sell more.
It only helps one in six patients and we have no way of telling who those patients are, that means you need to assign it randomly to six patients to treat one person - the alternatives help around 1 in two patients. Complete and utter garbage from a public health perspective - what we need to do is fund ways of identifying the patients it would benefit, not blow billions on a shit generics manufacturer.
Pffffff. I work in drug development.
This is just another brexit - a soundbite that sounds good to people, but no ****ing idea of how it will work, or what the effects will be.
Vote for me.... fee drugs for everyone!
Edit: I've worked on Chronic Migraine drugs (including one that got subsequent approval). It's extremely difficult to show efficacy in this patient population - everyone has different triggers, everyone is on a cocktail of different drugs, most of which are unlicensed for migraine anyway, and most of which actually cause migraines themselves if you take too much, take them in combination with other drugs (which most people do) or subsequently stop taking them. In addition, the placebo effect in this population is huge. Basically, it's very difficult to show that something works well - let alone well enough to treat a large population on a prophylactic basis a very expensive drug.
Knowing Novartis in the UK - they will have gone in very high in their negotiations with Nice, and have been sent away with a flea in their ear. Which is exactly what NICE are supposed to do. If Novartis want the NHS to prescribe this, they need to come down on price. Novartis will have sent this story to the press in a (likely successful) attempt to strengthen their negotiation position. Its exactly the same as what happened with Lucentis
Same Batfink - I've started looking for jobs in Dublin, just in case the other lunatics get in. This country and it's inhabitants have properly lost their ****ing minds.
I’ve started looking for jobs in Dublin
I had my Australian citizenship approved last week.
We are thinking about moving home at some point in the medium-term (aging parents etc)..... but that's contingent on brexit not being a total catastro**** and plunging the country into recession, it seems it's also now contingent on the opposition not getting into power and secrewing-over the entire life-sciences industry in the uk.
On a brighter note: It's Friday lunchtime here, 24 degrees and clear blue skies, I'm logging off in 30 minutes to go surfing at freshwater beach. Not quite the "post-brexit sunlit uplands" of the UK, but it'll do for me
Its exactly the same as what happened with Lucentis
I think Lucentis is made by Genetech, not Norvartis, no?
he is just a student politician that has managed to keep that gig going for his whole career.Are you auditioning for Binners’ job?
well binners does seem to be more perceptive than most of you...
Lucentis - is that the one where the same drug licensed for one use is pennies but licenced for direct injection into the eye costs a huge amount - and the company owning the patent will not apply for a license to use the cheap version in direct injection?
The chemical formula and molar mass of those two drugs are different TJ, they aren’t the same. The cheaper drug is just as effective, but with a few more side effects.
When used for colonic cancer, the cheaper drug you are talking about - Avastin - costs significantly more due to the cost associated with getting the drug approved for that use by the FDA. If you want the same drug to keep fixed costs for all uses you have to consider forcing government to subsidise all costs of bringing a drug to market.
I read somewhere that doctors prescribe avastin for eye injection off label and it is sourced as a special - so my guess is the price difference reflects the costs of it being approved as a licensed medicine.
I’ve started looking for jobs in Dublin
I had my Australian citizenship approved last week.
I hate to break it to you but Oz isn't in the EU.
Nothing like lucentis. Avastin (is a cancer drug it’s a big antibody that is dosed at a high level and widely used. It mops up a signal molecule (VEGF) that stimulates blood vessel growth in tumours. Lucentis (rabinizumab) is a different antibody tagetting the same VEGF molecule. But it is not the whole molecule, just the small binding tips (antibodies are Y shaped and it’s the tips of the Y). The smaller lucentis is injected in the eye, originally to mitigate possible safety issues with antibodies.
Both molecules neutralise the same target, so the NHS did a study to show they had the same clinical effect in wet AMD. And they do. But for each vial of avastin you can treat 20 eyes. Assuming you retain sterility.
So you see it is not a generic, it’s another molecule that works the same way and used as a substitute due to cost per mg dose being very different in cancer and eye treatment. There is a 40x difference in price. Physicians can use anything off label but pharma cannot promote off label use. And there have been cases of eye infections with avastin. The worry about the effects of a fully functional antibody inside the eye does not appear to be significant, however.
As for new drugs, there is currently a negotiation on price for performance. We don’t know if you’ll respond, so first doses are free and you pay for patients who respond. That’s one model, there are others. I’m all for NICE and cost effectiveness btw, but get frustrated when other countries who are substantially the same come to different conclusions. And NICE don’t have to show their workings.
PS communism never developed a medicine.
Good until the last line, the commies did some interesting work but it never took hold globally - bacteriophage therapy etc.
Back from my non-EU surf.... pretty awesome.
Lucentis was developed by Genentech, it was marketed by Novartis outside of the US.
well binners does seem to be more perceptive than most of you…
I am giving you a 'could try harder' as a Binners replacement. You still haven't even posted any tired Monty Python images yet which is just plain lazy.
well binners does seem to be more perceptive than most of you…
Well perhaps if you predict every combination of every possible outcome every couple of days; reflect on a few negative polls as evidence, talk up Tom Watson, Jess Philips and Rory Stewart - eventually you will hit something. Not sure what though.
And completely ignore anything that is remotely positive about Corbyn.
Yeah I can see that's some sort of opinion dressed as perception.
One thing about Binners that is good is he effectively pursueded me to be a Labour member. Nice one.
Look at the mortality rate for phage therapy. It suits communism well 😉
Afternoon Comrades. Any news on how the revolution is progressing? Just making plans for the weekend and wondered if I needed to factor it in?
Late September, Comrade Binnerski, time to make sure you've finished your fruit harvest.
Oh, and get the last of the spuds out before the slugs get to them.
Just making plans for the weekend and wondered if I needed to factor it in?
Don't worry, the organic cafe has yet to be nationalized so you have plenty of time to quaff craft ale, feign concern about the poor and worry about house prices.
Coryn isn't fit to even carry Tom Watsons bag...
Conference bounce:
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1177617752326098952?s=21
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1177106311554752513?s=21
Nothing happened at conference to put me off voting Labour… but nothing happened to make a Labour majority government any more likely. Did people not notice it? Or was it a failed opportunity to grow support, while the focus was on Labour?
Did people not notice it?
The SC ruling dominated the news. The daft Watson thing at the start didn't help either
The outcome of the conference was some excellent policy ideas, especially the green new deal. Well explained to people this could be hugely popular.
Coryn isn’t fit to even carry Tom Watsons bag…
Maybe Watson can carry it himself and shut the door behind him.
Conference also had some silly things, 4 day week has people worried they lose salary and while revoking private schools charity status is a valid argument, seizing their buildings is bonkers.
Fact is conference was always going to be about Brexit & Johnson has the stronger narrative, even if it is poisoning the country
I suspect Yougov is closer to reality than situation (I was polled as part of the survation one)
Nothing happened at conference to put me off voting Labour… but nothing happened to make a Labour majority government any more likely. Did people not notice it? Or was it a failed opportunity to grow support, while the focus was on Labour?
Of course it was a failed opportunity to grow support - outright banning private schools and seizing intellectual property isn’t going to attract the centrists and centre left voters that are required to grow their vote further. Doubling down on harder left policies is not going to get them into power as those that are attracted to those kinds of policies will vote labour regardless.
I think I'm fairly representative of someone whom Labour would need to persuade to vote for them if they were to stand any chance of forming a government.
However, all I see is lunacy at the moment: no position on Brexit; a frankly ludicrous policy on private schools; and a general swing to the bad elements of the far left that we had in the 70s.
When Corbyn became leader I was quite optimistic that he might put clear air between Labour and Tory policies. I didn't really want this much clear air, however, and I'm sure others feel the same.
Looks like I'll be voting Lib Dem again, but only as a least worst option.
JP
I’ll agree to that sentiment. Lifelong labour voter, despite not being in their core demographic, until it’s lurch to the left. Ok I live in a very safe conservative seat (5th in the country) but I voted Lib Dem last time and will again.
Alistair Campbell nails it by always saying you must win the middle ground to win power. Neither party commands that space so neither will govern. I see little ambition of that from the current Labour party. A party who delivered the largest majority in history and three consecutive general election victories.
Yes, agreed.
The pharma thing is another non-starter for winning the middle ground, too.
I take it all back. The Tory's have just announced additional funding for rural bus services, so hats off to Jezza. I'm sure he can sit back and see the influence he's having on policy
The didn't specify whether they were going to write any large messages down the side of thse buses 😉
no position on Brexit
I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this.
You're right Molls. Its completely unfair criticism
He's at least 17 different positions on Brexit, depending on who he's talking too 😉
I honestly have no idea why people keep saying this.
I honestly have no idea why molgrips keeps thinking that Corbyn has a position on Brexit.
I don’t care what his position is any more.
As long as he backs a vote on his Brexit that lets us reject it and remain if we wish, that’ll do me.
I expect many other voters do want a single clear position to be adopted by Labour before they’ll vote for its candidates at a general election though, but that’s unlikely to happen unless he moves aside. And that’s not happening.
the brexit decision needs to be completely divorced from a GE - there needs to be a referendum first or the issue will be completely clouded by political affiliations.
In fact A50 just needs to be revoked until a workable NI border solution has been agreed with the Irish (not anyone else...).
Then, if such a solution can be found (...) have that 2nd referendum with options to 1. leave so no EU body has any control (courts/etc), 2. remain, 3. customs union/eea/whatever, 4. anything else, and apply PR to the vote - like most political elections are at university.
I agree that is what should happen.
But it won’t.
Standing in the way of a VONC. 🙁
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891500
Ian Blackford doesn't have skin in this game and he's spot on.
While Margaret Beckett would be ideal for all, Labour should push forward someone from their front bench like Angela Rayner or Keir Starmer now… and wrong foot the LibDems and those MPs cut adrift from their old parties…
“ You don’t want our party leader to be interim PM, and we’re not okay with that, but this is one of the most important months in British political history… so here is our alternative… back them and let’s get an extension now, rather than wait for a crisis to unfold. ”
“ You don’t want our party leader to be interim PM, and we’re not okay with that, but this is one of the most important months in British political history… so here is our alternative… back them and let’s get an extension now, rather than wait for a crisis to unfold. ”
This. And it can be *anyone*. As Ken Clarke says the identity of the caretaker is irrelevant, yes it shouldn't be a mainstream party leader but beyond that it doesn't matter.
It should be Bercow.
That would be amazeballs.
It should be Bercow.
I know you jest and if an apolitical candidate was required he'd be the man.
...but this isn't apolitical, this is a seriously political role. The opposition have the numbers to change a political course and remove a government that they all think is fundamentally wrong. You can't get much more political than that.
…but this isn’t apolitical, this is a seriously political role
Agreed... .but in this instance it probably needs to be someone who is party apolitical whilst still representing the political no deal camp.
If not Bercow then Blackford purely because, other than to unite a temporary government to deal with the single issue, he cannot ever command a majority as PM so presents absolutely no danger of hanging on in there for his own purposes and can be removed from the post by any of the other coalition parties at will.
Plus he usually comes across as the only adult in the room.
More important than being political or apolitical at this stage, I’d say vaguely competent was a more pressing qualification
So someone who is capable of finding their own arse, using both hands, politically speaking, is a must.
So that’s grandad out in the first round. There are pot plants with sharper political instincts, and things are about to require just those instincts.
The next month is going to see all manner of political manoeuvring, the likes of which this country has never seen before. Someone like Ken Clarke would be ideal. Someone with bags of high-level political experience, rather than some bloke who spent 30 years as an anonymous back bencher then found himself leader of the opposition, by mistake.
The lib dems and their tory mates are making no deal more likely. That's the end result of their politicking. They would prefer no deal to Corbyn as PM. That's fine, but they should be honest about it. The labour party is by far the biggest party and should lead a new govt. Swinson talks about maths, yet she denies the fact that labour have 246 MPs to her 18, and the 21 tory rebels. She needs to decide her priorities very quickly. Betraying the remain side of the argument will not be a good look.
While I hate to think I agree with Jo Swinson on anything, on this she is absolutely correct. There is no way the maths add up for a Corbyn led coalition, even though he has precedence in his favour. Corbyn knows this too of course, that's why he won't stand aside.
The lib dems and their tory mates are making no deal more likely. That’s the end result of their politicking. They would prefer no deal to Corbyn as PM. That’s fine, but they should be honest about it. The labour party is by far the biggest party and should lead a new govt. Swinson talks about maths, yet she denies the fact that labour have 246 MPs to her 18, and the 21 tory rebels. She needs to decide her priorities very quickly. Betraying the remain side of the argument will not be a good look.
So the LibDems, who's electoral USP will be destroyed by a no deal Brexit before the election, prefer a fast "no deal", whereas Labour who will electorally gain from Brexit being settled before an election and who's current leadership have been consistent Brexiteers for 40 years are in favour of avoiding the quick no deal Brexit which solves their biggest single problem?
Intriguing analysis. Care to explain your reasoning?