Given the current polling, it looks like the Conservative party might win an outright majority in the December 12 general election. If so, Brexit will almost surely pass in some form or other, leading to turmoil in the near future.
But I want to look at another major issue and that is the future of the National Health Service. It is widely assumed that Boris Johnson will put NHS privatization on the table as part of a bilateral trade deal with the US. Donald Trump has said in the past that he wants this.
But there are some questions concerning this that those who live in the UK and are more familiar with its political minutiae are better able to answer. I assume that any such a trade deal would have to be passed by parliament. Are the Conservative MPs Johnson cultists (like Republicans in the US Congress with Trump) who will go along with any plan he puts forward or will there be enough defections on NHS privatization that his plans will be thwarted? Will he be able to bundle NHS privatization with a whole host of other measures in a trade deal that will make opponents of NHS privatization go along?
Johnson has of course denied any intention of privatizing the NHS because despite the grumbling about the quality of service (largely caused by the government not fully funding it), the British people love their NHS and the idea of replacing it with something like the nightmare that is the US health system fills many with horror.
Johnson is a known liar. Trump has later denied wanting to privatize the NHS and this raises an interesting issue since he is also a known liar. If a known liar supports a statement made by another known liar, does that increase or decrease the likelihood of the original statement being true? A long time ago, I read a study (I wish I had kept it because I cannot find it now) that said, if I recall correctly, that it decreases the chances of the statement being true. So that would make Trump’s support of Johnson more likely that Johnson’s denial is false.
This is why I love you, Mano.
Both major parties changed the way they elect a leader in the recent-ish past, from the leader being chosen mainly by the Parliamentary party (i.e. MPs) to the leader being directly elected by a ballot of members of the party.
This change explains the rise of both Jeremy Corbin and Boris Johnson.
Neither is popular with a majority of their MPs, IMO.
Firstly, your underlying assumption is incorrect: following the abandonment of the recent Trade Bill (conveniently caused by Johnson’s prorogation of parliament, although I’m sure that’s just a coincidence…) such a deal would not have to be passed by parliament.
Secondly, it’s not so much that they’re “Johnson cultists”, it’s that most of the remaining Tory party (the last remaining sensible people mostly having now left or been ejected over Brexit) are (a) rabid Hayekian free-marketers who are deeply ideologically committed to privatising everything, and (b) wealthy investors who personally stand to make a great deal of money from such a deal. Many of them have substantial holdings in healthcare and health insurance companies.
The privatisation of the NHS will not be a consequence of Brexit. On the contrary, Brexit is a consequence of a long-standing desire on the part of the Hayekian wing of the Tory party to privatise the NHS (amongst other things). Many of the people and organisations behind the Leave campaign have spent the last couple of decades pushing that agenda. This topic is explored in a very long and detailed blog post here: Brexit was the result of a corporate lobbying campaign, which backfired. What did the people behind it really want?
@Dunc(#3):
Enlightening article at the the end there. Thought the leave vote was a side effect of 40 years bashing & blaming Europe.
Who Cares. @ #4: Well, as with all such things, it’s complicated… The reasons why individual leave supporters actually voted that way are not necessarily the same as the reasons why various interest groups promoted a leave vote, or why any particular politician campaigned for it.
“Given the current polling, it looks like the Conservative party might win an outright majority in the December 12 general election.”
What the hell is wrong with England (and I do mean England, not the UK)?
Dunn @#3,
Wow, that is depressing. I had been looking for a silver lining but your comment and the linked article pretty much eliminated it.
Mano: The really depressing thing is that it’s not like any of this stuff was secret, or even moderately well-concealed. Although it’s a lot of work to put all of the details together in one place, the general outline was fairly obvious to anybody who actually bothered to pay attention. Unfortunately, such people are a minority.
My only silver lining is that I’m Scottish, and in favour of independence. That’s certainly looking quite a bit more likely now, and will continue to do so if Johnson gets his way.
“The reasons why individual leave supporters actually voted that way are not necessarily the same as the reasons why various interest groups promoted a leave vote”
My experience of taking with Leave voters over the last three years has convinced me that the reason most voted that way is that they are complete fucking morons.