All democratically elected leaders will have an element of decent folk voting for them. It doesn't spare them from ridicule & criticism, nor should it.

But 2.87 million more of them voted for Clinton; he won because of the bizarre electoral college system in the US.

No more bizarre than ours though is it. Already gone through this before. 2010 election the Snp got 50 odd seats for 3 million votes and the Ukip got zilch (or 1) for 4 million.

So if something similar happened in Russia, as what's happened to Jefferey Epstein in America, how would 'western governments' react?

The hypocrisy is staggering.

I know one thing. There will have been plenty of high profile figures breathing huge sighs of relief upon hearing the news of his suicide. His trial would have opened a right can of worms.

I dont for one minute believe he commited suicide

Do you reckon Prince Andrew's dad might have been involved?

But we’re not electing a prime minister/President. We’re electing a local representative. So whilst our system is poor (should be PR) it’s nowhere near as ridiculous as the US system.

The west happily laughs at African, South American or Asian governments where the president got less votes than his challenger yet somehow still won.

Now that the USA is pulling out of the Paris climate agreement and suggesting that he want's the USA to become "an energy superpower" should Trump be officially be regarded as a "climate change denier" and what can or should be done to try and get him back on board.

The roadkill he puts on his head looks ridiculous. As for his false teeth he wants to stick 3tubes of UHU on them so they don’t start slipping from his gums.

Donald Trump wants a no deal Brexit so he can get his grubby hands on the nhs and force through more privatisation of our healthcare.

He knows Jeremy Corbyn won’t let this happen whereas Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson will.

This was exposed on QT last night as Labour scaremongry - everybody knows the NHS is not going to be privatised - every major US pharmaceutical company already has a presence in the UK so what is going to change. The vast majority of drugs we use in this country are out of patent and we use generic options. Which bits of the NHS will get privatised?

The idiot shadow health secretary suggested it would cost the NHS an additional £500m a week - that was until it was pointed out that the reduction in the spina bifida drug negotiated between a US co and the government.

Are you really looking to Question Time for confirmation???

You also forgot to acknowledge one of the guests, Kate Andrews, whose 'cute and cuddly' title is the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Sounds like she's doing us a favour, right? Kate Andrews is also a prominent lobbyist for private healthcare companies.

On Newsnight in July, she said... “It’s time to overhaul the NHS and replace it with a system fit for 2018”

Now, what kind of system do you think she has in mind?

It isn’t much to do with pharmaceutical companies, directly at least. Drugs account for about 12% of NHS spending. The NHS already spends close to 10% of its budget on care purchased from the private sector, and how much that grows and shapes healthcare policy and delivery is probably the bigger issue.

But, on drugs Americans pay much higher prices than other countries. This is partly because they are rich and can afford it, and drug companies implement differential pricing to make their products accessible in poorer countries as well. However, they also pay higher prices than even wealthy European countries who have strong government-backed cost-containment measures in place. The Americans might view such approaches as being a bit socialist for their tastes, but their own system is fragmented and has some poorly aligned incentives, and from a selfish UK perspective, we [ireally[/i want avoid adopting something similar. It is maybe unfair that the US carries so much of the burden of funding the Global pharmaceutical industry. But i’d prefer they changed it through reforming their own crappy, inefficient system, rather than foisting it on us.

Really ?/
It's a bloody good job that you're not a fish, as you seem to have jumped on the hook pretty damn quick.

There is no doubt at all that a section of the Tory Party would very happily hive off parts of the NHS and it was more telling a few months ago, when May (I think) said that the NHS wouldn't be part of any trade deal and Trump replied that it would be all or nothing.
This seems a little more believable than a Tory on QT pretending that the NHS is "not for sale".
Of course we already take drugs from the US but, there is plenty of scope for a "takeover" AND the prospect of moving towards health insurance, which I think is where the US would be most interested.

I am amazed you can walk anything but in a straight line - you are so blinkered.

This country will never move to a insurance-based health care option. You know that and so do I - any party that proposed that would be out of power for a very long time. I am all for those that can afford it going private - takes pressure of the NHS who can use the resource to treat those that can't/wont insure themselves.

Which bits of the NHS are they going to hive off? the bigger discussion is what do we want our NHS to provide - everything to everybody? If you do could I suggest basic tax rate would need to 50-60% - when do you say enough is enough?

Of course Trump is going to say it all or nothing - he said the Mexican's were going to pay for a wall to keep their citizens in!! There is a good chance he will not be in power in a year's time. The fact you believe it suggests you would struggle to swim!!

Yesterday's Corbyn tweet was the cost of the US trade deal is now an estimated £45bn in extra costs of drugs. Diane Abbott must be doing the calculations

Let's be generous NHS funding is approx. £120bn of which drugs represent approx 15% so £18bn so that is going to rise to £63bn - really!!

Yeah, that is rubbish, I agree.

There’s no timeframe on it, and he says ‘could’ so it is meaningless, rather than an outright lie, perhaps. But even so.

Also he says costs could rise to £45 billion, rather than by £45 billion. Imo that is still outlandish, assuming we’re talking per annum - but seriously, if we did adopt the US system wholesale (which we won’t... I hope), prices would rise dramatically. Even a watered down version would be impactful.

More PFI-type initiatives and outsourcing would be my bigger concern.

No.
If the UK increased spend up to OECD or EU averages as % of GDP it would make a substantial difference. And I believe most UK taxpayers would be satisfied with that choice.

But incidentally why are you so comfortable with the very socialist notion of the NHS? Surely socialism is socialism is socialism, and isn't acceptable anywhere, based on your rhetoric in other posts?

It’s a interesting question. On a simple level, I think things we need should be provided by the state and things we want should be provided by the commercial sector.

But even where the distinction is clear (e.g. staple foods), i wouldn’t always advocate change. And there are obviously grey lots of areas between want and need.

I think the greatest donators to the well being of the general public have been business people made good e.g. Gates, that is what Maslow suggests will happen. Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there. The vulnerable in society need protecting and need access to a good standard of health care - is it acceptable that those who don't provide for themselves should have the same level of access as those that do without to provide for themselves?

The population have already been asked to put an extra 3% into pension because the previous version couldn't cope and this will rise to 5% so where do you think the additional monies are going to come from - I forgot you are a Socialist and the state knows best and we should be left with what Jeremy deems acceptable.

Remind me who instigated PFIs?

McDonald was put on the spot about this by Marr this morning - he had no reply to the deals done by the US in Canada and Australia where Health care provision was excluded. All he had was we can't trust Trump its the same on workers rights - we cant trust the Tories - no evidence whatsoever just tired all finger pointing.

What "abuse" are you talking about? People going to the doctor because they are worried about something but knowing it won't cost them anything is massively more cost effective than people not going to the doctor because they are worried about the cost and thus delaying diagnosis and treatment until it's too late. That's healthcare 101.

Only a hard-core right winger would classify this as "abuse".

Quote ="Sal Paradise" Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there.'" How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587

Quote ="Sal Paradise" Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there.'" How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587

BTW as already explained this simplistic labelling of people as "socialists" who don't agree with pure free markets is tiresome. Almost everyone, me included, is discussing quite how to balance our mixed economy. I'm similar to Mild Rover in what sectors the government should involve itself in but the biggest problem i have is the state of the private sector. In far too many areas, from the market for labour to the supermarkets to Amazon we see examples of market failure. The habit of some in using the term "free market" as a sort of euphemism for the private sector is troubling because a properly free market is free in both supply and demand. An oligopoly and a monopoly are often just failed markets who eventually short change their customers and consumers and we see examples all around the UK.

One of my clients used to be a tomato supplier on a pretty industrial scale. Tesco offered him prices which would have seen him make a loss on supplying them. It was a totally inequitable arrangement and for other suppliers who only had one big customer there were few options. Fortunately he also had a contract with Sainsburys which meant he could reject Tesco but it was a revealing insight into abuse of a dominant position to screw suppliers.

I believe in GENUINE free markets in almost all sectors other than those where it makes no sense: health, education, defence, police, domestic transport, fixed supply utilities. But, to use a phrase, they should be properly regulated free markets where abusive actions by companies or individuals who have gamed the system are met with suitably powerful anti trust regulators.