Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: danumdon on December 03, 2022, 05:38:11 pm
-
https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1598966575566036992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1598966575566036992%7Ctwgr%5E504ab9afed6990a0c989eab33b68036b7a58c970%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2022%2F12%2F03%2Fwatch-angela-rayner-hair-charity-dj-battle%2F
I'd vote for her, i think.
-
Ermm, ok maybe not.
-
Labour don't convince me that I would vote for them in all honesty, I think a lot of voters will feel like that
-
except for those polled recently
-
Labour don't convince me that I would vote for them in all honesty, I think a lot of voters will feel like that
Well i for one will vote for anyone in order to get rid of this current corrupt shower.
As labour are most likely to do this, they will get my vote.
-
Rayner is one of a few Labour MPs that has star quality. Absolutely slayed Johnson when up against him, not seen her directly up against the head boy yet but would be a laugh.
-
Rayner is one of a few Labour MPs that has star quality. Absolutely slayed Johnson when up against him, not seen her directly up against the head boy yet but would be a laugh.
See this is where we as a country take the wrong path, all the time.
I like my politicians to be what it says on the tin, i want competence and know how, i want honesty and integrity, i want my politicians to be in it because they want to make a difference and they have the good of the nation at heart first and foremost.
I don't want a performing seal, i don't want liars, cheats and corrupt back stabbers, i don't want somebody who wants to game the system and is in just purely for their own gain and aggrandisement, i don't want someone with "a personality who's a good old boy or girl with "star quality" i don't want weasel words and plaudits, i want positive action.
I don't want much, i just want some fu**er to do their job and to do it well.
And i'm prepared to pay them more handsomely for their efforts.
Do i want too much?
-
Someone will put this better than me, but I don't think you want too much at all, but expecting it might be too much.
We seem to have gone that far down a personality rabbit hole , one photo eating a bacon buttie makes you unelectable. I think we've had decent people on power on both sides, maybe not at right time to succeed for them and they were dropped , so how does it attract such a person and retain through ranks for them become a prime minister we can be proud of, even they are of a different political persuasion
-
I've said before that in 2009, that well known lefty rag The Times had a journalist embedded with No10 as Brown was trying to help the world avoid Great Depression 2. She reported on the overwhelming stress and workload that Brown was getting through, the gravity of the decisions he had to make on an hourly basis, the way he would cajole,beseech or threaten other global leaders to do the right thing, then the way he'd be lambasted in the Press for having a face like a smacked arse.
Her closing line was something to the effect of Brown being a massive, serious political force, but that it was 100% certain he would lose the next election. She said that, in an era when society wanted "characters" to amuse them, maybe we as a country didn't deserve to have someone like Brown as PM.
Just look at the shit show that the subsequent 4 have taken us through.
1) Cameron who breezed into No10 with his Droight du Seigneur attitude that he was the stuff that elite rulers are made of, and if he had to f**k the country through pushing a disastrous economic policy to wrong-foot Brown then tough titty. Then he catastrophically miscalculated on the Brexit vote, never seeming to realise that his own personal unpopularity would help lose the vote.
2) May, who immediately put party before country by interpreting the wafer thin Brexit vote as demanding the hardest of Brexits.
3) Johnson who schemed to bring both the previous two down, was never in it for anything other than his own gratification, and finally convinced even his closest supporters (BB excepted) that he was a moral vacuum.
4) Truss. Just...where the f**k to even start?
That Times reporter was right. We lost the right to have someone as serious a figure as Brown to lead us.
-
Told you it would be put better, out of interest and based my limited knowledge, the other recent one I'd put with Brown was Major who seemed a decent bloke but without star appeal
-
The biggest tragedy in politics was the day John Smith passed away.
IMO he would have been the greatest Labour Prime Minister since Clem Atlee.
-
I've said before that in 2009, that well known lefty rag The Times had a journalist embedded with No10 as Brown was trying to help the world avoid Great Depression 2. She reported on the overwhelming stress and workload that Brown was getting through, the gravity of the decisions he had to make on an hourly basis, the way he would cajole,beseech or threaten other global leaders to do the right thing, then the way he'd be lambasted in the Press for having a face like a smacked arse.
Her closing line was something to the effect of Brown being a massive, serious political force, but that it was 100% certain he would lose the next election. She said that, in an era when society wanted "characters" to amuse them, maybe we as a country didn't deserve to have someone like Brown as PM.
Just look at the shit show that the subsequent 4 have taken us through.
1) Cameron who breezed into No10 with his Droight du Seigneur attitude that he was the stuff that elite rulers are made of, and if he had to f**k the country through pushing a disastrous economic policy to wrong-foot Brown then tough titty. Then he catastrophically miscalculated on the Brexit vote, never seeming to realise that his own personal unpopularity would help lose the vote.
2) May, who immediately put party before country by interpreting the wafer thin Brexit vote as demanding the hardest of Brexits.
3) Johnson who schemed to bring both the previous two down, was never in it for anything other than his own gratification, and finally convinced even his closest supporters (BB excepted) that he was a moral vacuum.
4) Truss. Just...where the f**k to even start?
That Times reporter was right. We lost the right to have someone as serious a figure as Brown to lead us.
After adopting a deregulated approach to household credit and the financial sector at least Brown cleaned up New Labour's part in the mess I'll give you that .
Although most people would say prevention is better than cure especially when you follow an ideologically driven neoliberal government of 18 years standing .
The 2010 election result confirmed that having a preventive jab is better than a mouthful of nasty medicine .
-
I've said before that in 2009, that well known lefty rag The Times had a journalist embedded with No10 as Brown was trying to help the world avoid Great Depression 2. She reported on the overwhelming stress and workload that Brown was getting through, the gravity of the decisions he had to make on an hourly basis, the way he would cajole,beseech or threaten other global leaders to do the right thing, then the way he'd be lambasted in the Press for having a face like a smacked arse.
Her closing line was something to the effect of Brown being a massive, serious political force, but that it was 100% certain he would lose the next election. She said that, in an era when society wanted "characters" to amuse them, maybe we as a country didn't deserve to have someone like Brown as PM.
Just look at the shit show that the subsequent 4 have taken us through.
1) Cameron who breezed into No10 with his Droight du Seigneur attitude that he was the stuff that elite rulers are made of, and if he had to f**k the country through pushing a disastrous economic policy to wrong-foot Brown then tough titty. Then he catastrophically miscalculated on the Brexit vote, never seeming to realise that his own personal unpopularity would help lose the vote.
2) May, who immediately put party before country by interpreting the wafer thin Brexit vote as demanding the hardest of Brexits.
3) Johnson who schemed to bring both the previous two down, was never in it for anything other than his own gratification, and finally convinced even his closest supporters (BB excepted) that he was a moral vacuum.
4) Truss. Just...where the f**k to even start?
That Times reporter was right. We lost the right to have someone as serious a figure as Brown to lead us.
The last time I voted for a Tory owd lad was Tony Blair in the 90s.
The only time I might have voted for Boris Johnson was if the only alternative was Keir Starmer.
-
Rayner is one of a few Labour MPs that has star quality. Absolutely slayed Johnson when up against him, not seen her directly up against the head boy yet but would be a laugh.
See this is where we as a country take the wrong path, all the time.
I like my politicians to be what it says on the tin, i want competence and know how, i want honesty and integrity, i want my politicians to be in it because they want to make a difference and they have the good of the nation at heart first and foremost.
I don't want a performing seal, i don't want liars, cheats and corrupt back stabbers, i don't want somebody who wants to game the system and is in just purely for their own gain and aggrandisement, i don't want someone with "a personality who's a good old boy or girl with "star quality" i don't want weasel words and plaudits, i want positive action.
I don't want much, i just want some fu**er to do their job and to do it well.
And i'm prepared to pay them more handsomely for their efforts.
Do i want too much?
Totally agree about someone being able to do their job, and I think Rayner has what it takes. The media would try to murder her - and that's the problem, always has been the problem - the media dictate the game. Holding people to account is essential, including highlighting character fails, even if in a characature way, but lying and convincing the public to believe those lies, even half lies, is criminal. We don't have democracy any more than if a child is given a knife it becomes a surgeon.
-
She's a heck of a dancer, what a mover in all ways
-
Its noticeable that no one has virtually anything good to say about any of the politicians of today. Raynor, i just don't see it, first impression she gives is a gob on a stick, not many words later she's cemented that belief that most will already have. Its laudable that she turned her own personal circumstances around but would she have it in her to do the same for the state, ?
John Smith is a good call but its noted that you're talking about someone from nigh on 30 years ago. He talked the talk and looked like he was going to walk the walk, tragically that's as far as it went.
Gordon Brown for me made his biggest mistake when he enabled Blair to attain god like status, against his better judgment, he should of seen him off much earlier then he finally did. When you look at Browns background you just don't see this kind of politician come to the fore in this day and age, you could say his background and education produced someone of his stature. Some could possibly make a case for Major but i could never agree, just something sly, sneaky and seedy about the bloke.
I think that the way we educate "the leaders of tomorrow" has changed out of all recognition from the backgrounds of people like Smith, Brown and Thatcher. That being the case its debatable we will never have their like again coming into politics for the right reasons
Some of the current intake just look, sound and act completely wrong, full of group-think, indoctrinated and spreadsheet led, they don't have an original thought or vision in their makeup, they have to conform to their parties current policy line and would never stick their heads about the parapet to really tell you what they think, that's if they think at all. Its like we have lost a couple of generations of "proper leaders" for people who are more concerned about what their followers think and spout about them on social media instead of standing up for what THEY believe in and leading.
The future of politics in this country looks lost in their greedy, grabby hands, it will be very interesting to see what the future brings.
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
-
I've said before that in 2009, that well known lefty rag The Times had a journalist embedded with No10 as Brown was trying to help the world avoid Great Depression 2. She reported on the overwhelming stress and workload that Brown was getting through, the gravity of the decisions he had to make on an hourly basis, the way he would cajole,beseech or threaten other global leaders to do the right thing, then the way he'd be lambasted in the Press for having a face like a smacked arse.
Her closing line was something to the effect of Brown being a massive, serious political force, but that it was 100% certain he would lose the next election. She said that, in an era when society wanted "characters" to amuse them, maybe we as a country didn't deserve to have someone like Brown as PM.
Just look at the shit show that the subsequent 4 have taken us through.
1) Cameron who breezed into No10 with his Droight du Seigneur attitude that he was the stuff that elite rulers are made of, and if he had to f**k the country through pushing a disastrous economic policy to wrong-foot Brown then tough titty. Then he catastrophically miscalculated on the Brexit vote, never seeming to realise that his own personal unpopularity would help lose the vote.
2) May, who immediately put party before country by interpreting the wafer thin Brexit vote as demanding the hardest of Brexits.
3) Johnson who schemed to bring both the previous two down, was never in it for anything other than his own gratification, and finally convinced even his closest supporters (BB excepted) that he was a moral vacuum.
4) Truss. Just...where the f**k to even start?
That Times reporter was right. We lost the right to have someone as serious a figure as Brown to lead us.
The last time I voted for a Tory owd lad was Tony Blair in the 90s.
The only time I might have voted for Boris Johnson was if the only alternative was Keir Starmer.
That's an interesting way of saying you'd have voted for Corbyn over Johnson at the last election. I can't remember you saying it at the time though.
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
How do you justify that they are not?
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
Are you a labour supporter?
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
Are you a labour supporter?
When you get the leader of one of the biggest trade unions asking for assurances after that speech from Starmer that we are not to have Austerity Mk2 then you have to ask yourself.
Where are the Labour party going with this?
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
Are you a labour supporter?
When you get the leader of one of the biggest trade unions asking for assurances after that speech from Starmer that we are not to have Austerity Mk2 then you have to ask yourself.
Where are the Labour party going with this?
Nobody knows what he stands for, clearly needs a new leader and direction. Otherwise Tories will end up getting re-elected again
-
People saying Labour shouldn't be funded by the unions wondering why Labour isn't
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
Are you a labour supporter?
When you get the leader of one of the biggest trade unions asking for assurances after that speech from Starmer that we are not to have Austerity Mk2 then you have to ask yourself.
Where are the Labour party going with this?
Nobody knows what he stands for, clearly needs a new leader and direction. Otherwise Tories will end up getting re-elected again
Trade union members would rather vote for the party that is proposing to bring in anti-trade union law than the one that isn't, shock.
-
By 2pm today, January 5th, the CEOs of the FTSE 100 companies had been paid more than the average worker earns in a year.
At 3pm the government announced legislation to potentially allow those CEOs to sack workers who take lawful action to win a fair deal at work.
Vote Tory.
https://twitter.com/DrJoGrady/status/1611049453250568192
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
-
The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
Are you a labour supporter?
When you get the leader of one of the biggest trade unions asking for assurances after that speech from Starmer that we are not to have Austerity Mk2 then you have to ask yourself.
Where are the Labour party going with this?
Nobody knows what he stands for, clearly needs a new leader and direction. Otherwise Tories will end up getting re-elected again
I have been saying for years that no one knows what Starmer stands for.
-
The use of the “take back control” phrase is interesting. Savvy politics to win back brexit voters or just pathetic desperation?
He supports further private sector Co operation too. That will please hard left voters. But then, like most politicians, plenty of his mates will be CEOs/MDs etc.
Vote labour.
Same shit.
Different context.
-
People saying Labour shouldn't be funded by the unions wondering why Labour isn't The Labour Party needs a Mick Lynch sat on the front bench.
Even though I'm an RMT member Labour have yet to convince me I would vote for them, come across as far-right and the same as Tories in my view.
Labour far right??
I can’t get my breath!
Youth of today eh………, ;)
Are you a labour supporter?
When you get the leader of one of the biggest trade unions asking for assurances after that speech from Starmer that we are not to have Austerity Mk2 then you have to ask yourself.
Where are the Labour party going with this?
Nobody knows what he stands for, clearly needs a new leader and direction. Otherwise Tories will end up getting re-elected again
Trade union members would rather vote for the party that is proposing to bring in anti-trade union law than the one that isn't, shock.
no way I'd ever vote Conservatives
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
-
The use of the “take back control” phrase is interesting. Savvy politics to win back brexit voters or just pathetic desperation?
He supports further private sector Co operation too. That will please hard left voters. But then, like most politicians, plenty of his mates will be CEOs/MDs etc.
Vote labour.
Same shit.
Different context.
So Starmers "take back control" phrase is in connection with Labour handing out more devolution but in this case he's talking about devolving a great many competencies down to "local councils" is the man right in the head.
Can you imagine your local council being responsible for anything more than the bare minimum they just about manage to provide, even then they always manage to mess that up, its pretty obvious most local councils and councillors are just about competent enough to get there expense sheets submitted.
This to me says we've seen how badly the Tories have managed to run the state into the ground, if we get elected lets have the country "take back control" by giving it all to a bunch of incompetent local councillors to sort out, so when it finally goes tits up they can't blame me.
Comes across as trying to deflect blame before he's even started.
People wondered why he'd been light on policy, i think this tells you the direction of travel.
So yes, vote Labour
Same shit,
Slightly different context.
-
The use of the “take back control” phrase is interesting. Savvy politics to win back brexit voters or just pathetic desperation?
He supports further private sector Co operation too. That will please hard left voters. But then, like most politicians, plenty of his mates will be CEOs/MDs etc.
Vote labour.
Same shit.
Different context.
So Starmers "take back control" phrase is in connection with Labour handing out more devolution but in this case he's talking about devolving a great many competencies down to "local councils" is the man right in the head.
Can you imagine your local council being responsible for anything more than the bare minimum they just about manage to provide, even then they always manage to mess that up, its pretty obvious most local councils and councillors are just about competent enough to get there expense sheets submitted.
This to me says we've seen how badly the Tories have managed to run the state into the ground, if we get elected lets have the country "take back control" by giving it all to a bunch of incompetent local councillors to sort out, so when it finally goes tits up they can't blame me.
Comes across as trying to deflect blame before he's even started.
People wondered why he'd been light on policy, i think this tells you the direction of travel.
So yes, vote Labour
Same shit,
Slightly different context.
thank you Waldorf and Statler,
Many councils both labour and tory did a far better job in many areas than the government is doing now before the tories starved them of funding.
Vote for Austerity vote tory
And as a footnote:
Labour councils in England hit harder by austerity than Tory areas
This article is more than 2 years old
Exclusive: analysis by Guardian and Sigoma shows poorer, Labour-held areas lost over a third of spending power
levelling up or scorched earth, vote tory
-
The use of the “take back control” phrase is interesting. Savvy politics to win back brexit voters or just pathetic desperation?
He supports further private sector Co operation too. That will please hard left voters. But then, like most politicians, plenty of his mates will be CEOs/MDs etc.
Vote labour.
Same shit.
Different context.
So Starmers "take back control" phrase is in connection with Labour handing out more devolution but in this case he's talking about devolving a great many competencies down to "local councils" is the man right in the head.
Can you imagine your local council being responsible for anything more than the bare minimum they just about manage to provide, even then they always manage to mess that up, its pretty obvious most local councils and councillors are just about competent enough to get there expense sheets submitted.
This to me says we've seen how badly the Tories have managed to run the state into the ground, if we get elected lets have the country "take back control" by giving it all to a bunch of incompetent local councillors to sort out, so when it finally goes tits up they can't blame me.
Comes across as trying to deflect blame before he's even started.
People wondered why he'd been light on policy, i think this tells you the direction of travel.
So yes, vote Labour
Same shit,
Slightly different context.
Unfortunately it's a case of voting Labour at the next election for me personally because of the potential consequences if you don't .
That's pretty much all that's on offer really .
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
An “equal cohesive community” requires the participation of all from either end of the financial spectrum.
So I see you berating someone who will be paying a large amount into the states coffers to facilitate that requirement, I don’t see you pointing out people from the other end of the spectrum who for whatever reason are not attempting to play their part.
Everyone’s aware that a social security fallback needs to be in place but it should not be a lifestyle choice.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
To be fair, you've no idea what I earn or how, it's not relevant either.
I think it's important to assess the merits of each and every element. Is losing half your earnings enough of a contribution from those at the top or should it be more?
Where would you set the tax brackets and what percentages would you apply? It's a tricky topic.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
To be fair, you've no idea what I earn or how, it's not relevant either.
I think it's important to assess the merits of each and every element. Is losing half your earnings enough of a contribution from those at the top or should it be more?
Where would you set the tax brackets and what percentages would you apply? It's a tricky topic.
Or to puit it another way. Should we pay for public services, health, education, transport, roads, leisure, for everyone through tax - or should only rich people have access to these things - like Victorian Britain?
Tricky one.
-
Striking train drivers have had their demands met. An offered pay rise from £60k p/a to £65k p/a. The Labour left must be torn between solidarity and wanting to tax them more.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
To be fair, you've no idea what I earn or how, it's not relevant either.
I think it's important to assess the merits of each and every element. Is losing half your earnings enough of a contribution from those at the top or should it be more?
Where would you set the tax brackets and what percentages would you apply? It's a tricky topic.
tell me I got it wrong then pud.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
An “equal cohesive community” requires the participation of all from either end of the financial spectrum.
So I see you berating someone who will be paying a large amount into the states coffers to facilitate that requirement, I don’t see you pointing out people from the other end of the spectrum who for whatever reason are not attempting to play their part.
Everyone’s aware that a social security fallback needs to be in place but it should not be a lifestyle choice.
not berating challenging DD, you'll have to supply more detail as to what you mean and support it too.
-
Here's an odd thing
Denmark, Sweden and Finland all have much higher taxes than we do, and higher public sector salaries.
They also have far stronger economic growth.
Their people are, like for like, significantly richer than us.
And they come way above us in quality of life surveys.
Yet we still cling to the idea that screwing down the public sector and reducing taxes is the way to economic success and happiness.
-
Striking train drivers have had their demands met. An offered pay rise from £60k p/a to £65k p/a. The Labour left must be torn between solidarity and wanting to tax them more.
When did ASLEF go on strike? I've missed that one.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
To be fair, you've no idea what I earn or how, it's not relevant either.
I think it's important to assess the merits of each and every element. Is losing half your earnings enough of a contribution from those at the top or should it be more?
Where would you set the tax brackets and what percentages would you apply? It's a tricky topic.
tell me I got it wrong then pud.
I don't necessarily think that the biggest issues facing the country financially are resolved by taxing a small minority who could easily hide or switch that wealth elsewhere no.
So what would you suggest a tax system should look like?
-
Well you would say that wouldn't you? I'll take that as an admission I was correct then pud.
-
Striking train drivers have had their demands met. An offered pay rise from £60k p/a to £65k p/a. The Labour left must be torn between solidarity and wanting to tax them more.
When did ASLEF go on strike? I've missed that one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64191654
-
So what if pud earns above average? Good for him.
-
you appear to have a problem following the gist of a debate nc
-
Well you would say that wouldn't you? I'll take that as an admission I was correct then pud.
I don't even know what you're trying to claim to be fair. Perhaps if you actually tried to offer some substance rather than pick petty points on individual posters we'd have more interesting debate.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
How about we start again from here, surely you must have some reason for posting this, no hint of 'in my opinion' or anything else.
-
Striking train drivers have had their demands met. An offered pay rise from £60k p/a to £65k p/a. The Labour left must be torn between solidarity and wanting to tax them more.
When did ASLEF go on strike? I've missed that one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64191654
Yep, that looks ok.
-
you appear to have a problem following the gist of a debate nc
You mentioned it, not me.
-
Well you would say that wouldn't you? I'll take that as an admission I was correct then pud.
I don't even know what you're trying to claim to be fair. Perhaps if you actually tried to offer some substance rather than pick petty points on individual posters we'd have more interesting debate.
Agreed
-
It's quite straight forward wilts, pud made a pompous statement that 'sensible' people don't want a pay rise ............
''Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce''
-
As for future taxes, currently people who live off their work pay a far greater rate of tax than those who live off their wealth. We tax work - but not wealth.
It's estimated we can raise £45 billion from the richest 10% of the population by:
an annual 1% wealth tax on all net weath over £10 million
Raise capital gains tax and tax share dividends
Extend National Insurance to investment income
Scrap non-dom status
https://labourlist.org/2022/11/wealth-taxes-are-the-alternative-to-conservative-austerity-2-0/
-
It's quite straight forward wilts, pud made a pompous statement that 'sensible' people don't want a pay rise ............
''Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce''
Did he? Well if you say so but I don't read that as pompous. Even if you do then there are ways of replying without being personally offensive. I don't always agree with him but I know from previous posts pud is a decent poster.
What I would have done would be to go out and get a recent graph that shows most people do support the strikes and public sector workers getting a decent pay rise. What that says about people who don't support them not being sensible, well that's for them to say:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/20/nurses-and-ambulance-workers-have-most-public-supp
-
Do most people support the rail strikes?
-
Dunno, do they?
-
Do most people support the rail strikes?
I certainly do, and others that are striking to ensure their wages at minimum match inflation and their T&C’s are not eroded, our fore fathers fought for what we have today!
-
What's concerning myself with regards to Keith and the Labour Party is it's pretty obvious that if elected to government then Austerity will be prevalent .
How Labour Austerity will differ to the Tory version is maybe debatable however I'm far from convinced .
Austerity is the policy of the rich man that preserves their wealth and it's everyone else's wages and social structures that are hit with catastrophic consequences .
Austerity is rolled out and accepted by politicians as the only show in town when harsh times arrive and influenced by those with vested interests so as to not offer the alternative to neoliberalism .
That couldn't be further from why the Labour Party was formed in the first place and whilst I understand that in order to get elected Labour have to unite the working and middle class vote .
Where this goes spectacular wrong for me personally with the Labour Party is that both the working and middle classes are getting it in the backside big time , the middle classes possibly more than the working class at this moment in time .
We are at a moment in history when going down the same rabbit holes just in order to be elected in my opinion isn't good enough .
So yes I'll tick the Labour box at the next GE just to get rid of these current lunatics but in my opinion not a right lot will change in the UK under a Labour government and real CHANGE is desperately needed .
-
Do most people support the rail strikes?
If only the post above yours had a link to where you could check what % of people support particular strikes...
-
Dunno, do they?
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/support-december-rail-strikes-lower-october-action-public-opinion-remains-divided
-
Well you would say that wouldn't you? I'll take that as an admission I was correct then pud.
I don't even know what you're trying to claim to be fair. Perhaps if you actually tried to offer some substance rather than pick petty points on individual posters we'd have more interesting debate.
Agreed
Also agreed.
-
It's quite straight forward wilts, pud made a pompous statement that 'sensible' people don't want a pay rise ............
''Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce''
Did he? Well if you say so but I don't read that as pompous. Even if you do then there are ways of replying without being personally offensive. I don't always agree with him but I know from previous posts pud is a decent poster.
What I would have done would be to go out and get a recent graph that shows most people do support the strikes and public sector workers getting a decent pay rise. What that says about people who don't support them not being sensible, well that's for them to say:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/20/nurses-and-ambulance-workers-have-most-public-supp
Pompous is not offensive if the person making the statement does not appear to understand or refuses to understand the circumstance of the people in question wilts aye? I did ask for proof.
-
I guess the support draining away from the government shows where sentiment lies, my only concern is that the government sees a culture war as it's only way out and this will only happen if the public loses their nerve and hence support for those engaged in industrial action. The rags are trying their best to turn the argument and keep their readership atm.
-
I have read a bit of Starmers speech. It's very centrist imo. That appeals to someone like me, it's realistic and what the majority probably want to see.
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate. Labour are rightly not committing to things they realistically can't produce.
Citation please pud
It's an opinion (these matter too). Let's see if a party proposing tax increases and mass pay rises (inflation....) could win an election, I doubt it.
An opinion from a person that is in an earnings bracket way above the what the majority earns says that he doesn't want tax rises. I guess it's how you frame the question pud.
Would you like to see those all those who earn far more than what you are earning or will ever earn pay a bit more so you can have a fully functioning NHS, Police service, Schools, child care, councils etc and enjoy a more equal cohesive community?
To be fair, you've no idea what I earn or how, it's not relevant either.
I think it's important to assess the merits of each and every element. Is losing half your earnings enough of a contribution from those at the top or should it be more?
Where would you set the tax brackets and what percentages would you apply? It's a tricky topic.
Or to puit it another way. Should we pay for public services, health, education, transport, roads, leisure, for everyone through tax - or should only rich people have access to these things - like Victorian Britain?
Tricky one.
One could of course use this as an example ..................
''Revealed: NHS trusts tell patients they can go private and jump hospital queues .......... ''NHS trusts with record waiting lists are promoting “quick and easy” private healthcare services at their own hospitals, offering patients the chance to jump year-long queues, the Observer can reveal.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/07/revealed-nhs-trusts-tell-patients-they-can-go-private-and-jump-hospital-queues
-
Nothing new there Syd.
I had a bad knee injury 42 years ago.
I was taken to Hospital with my knee locked in a weird position and was told I could have surgery to put it right but it would mean waiting 3 to 4 months.
However if I paid I could get it done two days later.
The football club paid the bill, I got the knee repaired after jumping the queue.
-
yes there is hound, there is a code of conduct under the trust system, I guess you didn't read it.
The premium treatments are being offered through private patient units owned and operated by NHS trusts and typically located on hospital premises. Procedures are often carried out by the same staff who would eventually treat patients if they stayed on the NHS waiting list. Under a code of conduct, private services cannot impact on NHS patient care, and profits go back into the health service.
-
yes there is hound, there is a code of conduct under the trust system, I guess you didn't read it.
The premium treatments are being offered through private patient units owned and operated by NHS trusts and typically located on hospital premises. Procedures are often carried out by the same staff who would eventually treat patients if they stayed on the NHS waiting list. Under a code of conduct, private services cannot impact on NHS patient care, and profits go back into the health service.
What % of NHS staff also work privately?
Won’t private services “impact” the NHS by taking some pressure off it?
-
yes there is hound, there is a code of conduct under the trust system, I guess you didn't read it.
The premium treatments are being offered through private patient units owned and operated by NHS trusts and typically located on hospital premises. Procedures are often carried out by the same staff who would eventually treat patients if they stayed on the NHS waiting list. Under a code of conduct, private services cannot impact on NHS patient care, and profits go back into the health service.
You have no idea whether the staff and surgeons who repaired my knee were the same people who would have done so had I waited three months.
-
yes there is hound, there is a code of conduct under the trust system, I guess you didn't read it.
The premium treatments are being offered through private patient units owned and operated by NHS trusts and typically located on hospital premises. Procedures are often carried out by the same staff who would eventually treat patients if they stayed on the NHS waiting list. Under a code of conduct, private services cannot impact on NHS patient care, and profits go back into the health service.
What % of NHS staff also work privately?
Won’t private services “impact” the NHS by taking some pressure off it?
Not really. NHS work is done for cost. Private work is done for cost + profit. Therefore if the NHS pays for patients to have treatment in private hospitals - they will be able to treat less patients. Or something else will have to be cut-back.
Anyway we don't need private hospitals. These 40 new hospitals with 50 000 new nurses that Johnson promised will be coming on-line soon. Wont they...
-
Thing is though Wilts, as Streeting said very clearly this morning, there are phases of action needed in addressing the crisis in the NHS that the Tories have allowed to develop.
You can't develop new NHS capacity overnight. So if you want to quickly get waiting lists down, you likely have to buy in private capacity. That's from necessity, not choice.
The key then is to invest in the long term capacity of the NHS, so that the buying on of private help us only a short term expedient.
That is an approach that shows hard headed pragmatism for both the short and long terms.
-
Yes that's a short term fix to address immediate issues. The thread I am reply to appears to imply using private services (to replace NHS) permanently. Which is the current Tory 'policy' (or appears to be by running it down so much).
Streeting was clear it would only be short-term until he built up NHS capacity.
-
yes there is hound, there is a code of conduct under the trust system, I guess you didn't read it.
The premium treatments are being offered through private patient units owned and operated by NHS trusts and typically located on hospital premises. Procedures are often carried out by the same staff who would eventually treat patients if they stayed on the NHS waiting list. Under a code of conduct, private services cannot impact on NHS patient care, and profits go back into the health service.
What % of NHS staff also work privately?
Won’t private services “impact” the NHS by taking some pressure off it?
Not really. NHS work is done for cost. Private work is done for cost + profit. Therefore if the NHS pays for patients to have treatment in private hospitals - they will be able to treat less patients. Or something else will have to be cut-back.
Anyway we don't need private hospitals. These 40 new hospitals with 50 000 new nurses that Johnson promised will be coming on-line soon. Wont they...
How much of those getting private care had had it funded by the NHS?
On that note Wilts, it would be interesting to see how many of the last 3 prime ministers pledges have come true amidst this circus merry-go-round.
-
Yes that's a short term fix to address immediate issues. The thread I am reply to appears to imply using private services (to replace NHS) permanently. Which is the current Tory 'policy' (or appears to be by running it down so much).
Streeting was clear it would only be short-term until he built up NHS capacity.
I wasn’t implying that by the way, just recognising that private can have it’s uses.
-
It would also be interesting to know how many of our government bashing posters have had private healthcare at some time through their lives.
From what I have read on here over the years quite a few have now, or have had, good jobs and good jobs often include private healthcare cover for senior staff.
I don’t expect anyone to step forward though and admit to it.
-
[/quote]
Not really. NHS work is done for cost. Private work is done for cost + profit. Therefore if the NHS pays for patients to have treatment in private hospitals - they will be able to treat less patients. Or something else will have to be cut-back.
[/quote]
Love to read the source for this given how wrong it is
-
It would also be interesting to know how many of our government bashing posters have had private healthcare at some time through their lives.
From what I have read on here over the years quite a few have now, or have had, good jobs and good jobs often include private healthcare cover for senior staff.
I don’t expect anyone to step forward though and admit to it.
I think the general sentiment is that anything private can’t possibly serve the community.
I work in a small business private healthcare dealing with MSK cases. We are well respected in the community, improve the health of those in it and take the pressure of such cases off the local GPs.
If we were to assimilate within the NHS tomorrow. Our waiting list would rapidly lengthen and standards would go down. If people have the money to afford those standards, I don’t see the problem.
That doesn’t mean I want the NHS to get run down or to not get any help either. But private healthcare can help holistically to take pressure off the NHS. It does desperately need it. I just don’t like the implication from those on the left that any private healthcare is is profit and greed-driven.
Also, if Rishi Sunak was to use the NHS when he can afford to otherwise, is he not taking up the space of someone else who genuinely needs it? I don’t understand the issue with that part of his interview.
-
nc What you appear not to accept is that private facilities take resources from the NHS. In the article I posted it stated that private work should not be done to the detriment of NHS patients which is in effect what is happening, although profits from private work in trusts is paid back to the trust/NHS the private work takes the resources from it and the NHS patients get bumped down the list. If this continues and the private sector grows then we will end up with a us style copycat system.
-
The Labour plan to use private sector to address NHS capacity issues is that the Tories have been doing this since 2010.
£100 billion of NHS cash has been handed to private health since 2010.
In some cases NHS bed capacity was reduced annually and sold off to private health providers.
The Tories spent £13 billion on private sector bed capacity in 3 years.
During that time NHS waiting lists doubled.
Private health charge 11% more than the NHS. They refuse to treat patients with complex issues.
They are interested in the low risk proceedures, and leave the NHS to deal with more challenging cases.
Streeting is in the pay of a private health interest, who cover his office costs with donations.
Labour would have more credibility if they committed to the re-possession of those NHS assets transferred to private providers.
Return the capacity to NHS services by the most direct means, rather than restoring capacity by new provision which is ripe for re-sale at at change in government.
Running parallel systems is a waste of resources.
It writes profit taking into the DNA of the system.
-
From the article
''Hospitals are offering hip replacements from £10,000, cataract surgery for £2,200 and hernia repairs for £2,500. MRI scans are offered for between £300 and £400''
How is someone that struggles or cannot pay for food or heating that cannot get a decent pay rise be expected to be able to afford this.
7 million + on the waiting list.
-
Not really. NHS work is done for cost. Private work is done for cost + profit. Therefore if the NHS pays for patients to have treatment in private hospitals - they will be able to treat less patients. Or something else will have to be cut-back.
[/quote]
Love to read the source for this given how wrong it is
[/quote]
Not really one source but a very brief summary of a number of things I have read over the years. here's some
https://www.bma.org.uk/media/5378/bma-nhs-outsourcing-report-march-2022.pdf
https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-nhs-market-system-costing/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content
https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/nhs-spend-on-private-healthcare-rose-27-per-cent-in-a-year/7031836.article
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-stops-plan-charge-16548975
Happy to be corrected and have it explained how something which costs more will be cheaper?
-
The Labour plan to use private sector to address NHS capacity issues is that the Tories have been doing this since 2010.
£100 billion of NHS cash has been handed to private health since 2010.
In some cases NHS bed capacity was reduced annually and sold off to private health providers.
The Tories spent £13 billion on private sector bed capacity in 3 years.
During that time NHS waiting lists doubled.
Private health charge 11% more than the NHS. They refuse to treat patients with complex issues.
They are interested in the low risk proceedures, and leave the NHS to deal with more challenging cases.
Streeting is in the pay of a private health interest, who cover his office costs with donations.
Labour would have more credibility if they committed to the re-possession of those NHS assets transferred to private providers.
Return the capacity to NHS services by the most direct means, rather than restoring capacity by new provision which is ripe for re-sale at at change in government.
Running parallel systems is a waste of resources.
It writes profit taking into the DNA of the system.
You expect labour to fix almost 13 years of total incompetence overnight? And again you are asking labour to scare the horses, they won't be able to do anything if they don't get into government. The chaos of 4 tory governments is not going to be solved by the first labour government, ask the TUC.
-
Percentage of total UK income owned by top 1% since end of WW1
https://twitter.com/PplPolPlace/status/1612073326549307397
-
Yes wilts, what is the point of being the 6/7th wealthiest country if only a small % can get access to it. How many of those on the waiting list cannot work or cannot work to fully or need to be cared for by others, wouldn't fixing the NHS make good economic sense?
-
Syd,
Your reply 84 completely misses the point of my post.
It is not incompetence by the Tories...it is ideology.
They believe private health, for profit, is a better model of health provision.
Of course Labour should argue for a different approach.
There is no electoral value in supporting the existing transfer of resource from the public sector, when public opinion is strongly in favour of the NHS.
The idea that there is no alternative to a two tier model of health care is nonsense.
Transfer health resources into the system which offers better value for money to the whole community, not to the advantage of private shareholders.
There is also no excuse for accepting sponsorship from the private health sector whose interests are in your portfolio.
-
I don't think labour does support the transfer of public resources to the private sector Albie, it's a matter of timing. If the tories weren't so incompetent the economy starting from austerity would be in a lot better place, true the money may not have flowed to the NHS but the general population may have been able to afford to use the facilities.
-
There is a general summary of the state of play here, with references for those who like more detail;
https://chpi.org.uk/uncategorized/is-a-two-tier-healthcare-system-inevitable-in-the-uk/
The question is how best to reverse trends already in evidence, and what are the core matters of principle to base the health system upon.
-
I think most that want change understand the basics of what needs doing, it's just that a few want to see a more rapid change and fail to take into consideration of how something that appears achievable at any point in time can be snatched from ones grasp by a stupid war against a south American country or such like. Building confidence within the electorate and showing that labour can do the job is of the utmost importance.
Understanding the danger of the thread being taken off, off topic he edits the comment
-
Not really. NHS work is done for cost. Private work is done for cost + profit. Therefore if the NHS pays for patients to have treatment in private hospitals - they will be able to treat less patients. Or something else will have to be cut-back.
Love to read the source for this given how wrong it is
[/quote]
Not really one source but a very brief summary of a number of things I have read over the years. here's some
https://www.bma.org.uk/media/5378/bma-nhs-outsourcing-report-march-2022.pdf
https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-nhs-market-system-costing/?utm_source=content_page&utm_medium=related_content
https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/nhs-spend-on-private-healthcare-rose-27-per-cent-in-a-year/7031836.article
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-stops-plan-charge-16548975
Happy to be corrected and have it explained how something which costs more will be cheaper?
[/quote]
Without going into commercial sensitivities, we don’t pay private prices at private hospitals. In the main (and acknowledging that payment mechinismims are currently mainly on block contract due to the pandemic) nhs work is paid at tariff, these can be found on the nhs England website. Each trust will have differing costs so to say it is done at cost is incorrect, it is done for a fixed income. In my area where private work has been contacted from the nhs to alliviate waiting lists it has been done for a (large) % of that fixed income not as a premium over it. In short the trust got little to no income for treating that patient BUT the cost to the NHS budget was no higher than if treated in the trust
-
There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?
-
Percentage of total UK income owned by top 1% since end of WW1
https://twitter.com/PplPolPlace/status/1612073326549307397
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2020provisional/913c9529.png
-
There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?
That's an argument that works only if you ignore taxation.
What you are actually saying is, if richer people are encouraged to pay less tax, retain their wealth and choose to opt out of social health provision, thereby reducing pressure on the NHS, the position of the NHS would be better than if they'd been taxed and the proceeds put into the NHS.
I'm sure you see the flaw in that argument.
-
And of course, an inefficient NHS isn’t fixed for free. It costs us the taxpayer money.
But yes, it does need sorting out. I don’t think private should be vilified and can play a role in helping. This is the way in most European countries through insurance. Our NHS is the outlier in the modern world.
That being said, a healthier population is a happier and more productive one than can make everybody richer.
-
Think it would be interesting to find out how many MPs from all parties use private health care.
Wonder if it is an expense they can claim back?
-
''The links between private healthcare companies and some high-profile MPs, cabinet ministers and prime ministerial advisors are deeply alarming. How can we expect these people to stop NHS privatisation?''
https://www.everydoctor.org.uk/blog/private-healthcare-politicians
Cannot vouch for the accuracy of this
-
There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?
That's an argument that works only if you ignore taxation.
What you are actually saying is, if richer people are encouraged to pay less tax, retain their wealth and choose to opt out of social health provision, thereby reducing pressure on the NHS, the position of the NHS would be better than if they'd been taxed and the proceeds put into the NHS.
I'm sure you see the flaw in that argument.
Of course, we could tax people and businesses more that's an approach you can make, or you can give people and businesses a bit more choice to spend that if they wish. I do think seperate to taxation there should always be an option for people to choose the private route if they wish.
-
But it shouldn't be government driving or creating the conditions for private health to grow.
-
https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/
-
https://ceoworld.biz/2021/04/27/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2021/
So as the 6th wealthiest country in the world the UK's health system has not kept up aye?
-
People keep singing the praises of Germany, Sweden,Finland and Norway and yet they are behind us in that table.
-
I'm thinking the length of waiting lists and customer satisfaction are not amongst the parameters used to define the list.
-
People keep singing the praises of Germany, Sweden,Finland and Norway and yet they are behind us in that table.
who are these people hound?
-
Is there any wonder that the government are not trusted to maintain, build and modernise the NHS and its staff.
At the first opportunity following a decade of underfunding and negligence a fast lane for cronies was established but hidden from view. Contracts handed out bypassed a virtually brand new purpose built organisation designed to source and supply the NHS. The contract/products purchased via the VIP lane were not scrutinised for either value or whether they were fit for purpose. The government has had to be forced into handing over details of the debacle and the saga continues with a massive cost to store and dispose of the PPE mountain of shame.
And people rightly mone about it
-
“Healthcare in South Korea is universal, although a significant portion of healthcare is privately funded. South Korea's healthcare system is based on the National Health Insurance Service, a public health insurance program run by the Ministry of Health and Welfare to which South Koreans of sufficient income must pay contributions to in order to insure themselves and their dependants, and the Medical Aid Program, a social welfare program run by the central government and local governments to insure those unable to pay National Health Insurance contributions. In 2015, South Korea ranked first in the OECD for healthcare access.”
South Korea have an older population than us also. France also ranked higher on that list.
We can make the NHS work, but does it’s model need modernising? I don’t know enough about national healthcare to make one argument or the other, but it’s clear there that a completely public healthcare model isn’t the only way to do it.
UK demographics far older and fatter than they were when the NHS was founded.
-
There's no harm in a balanced private healthcare is there? It's a good way to alleviate pressure, perhaps the NHS may be in a stronger position if it offered more paid for services?
That's an argument that works only if you ignore taxation.
What you are actually saying is, if richer people are encouraged to pay less tax, retain their wealth and choose to opt out of social health provision, thereby reducing pressure on the NHS, the position of the NHS would be better than if they'd been taxed and the proceeds put into the NHS.
I'm sure you see the flaw in that argument.
Of course, we could tax people and businesses more that's an approach you can make, or you can give people and businesses a bit more choice to spend that if they wish. I do think seperate to taxation there should always be an option for people to choose the private route if they wish.
Isn't that what working people want, enough money to be able to make that very choice pud? Although having to make a choice to either heat or eat is a worse one.
When happens to ppl with work linked health insurance when they lose their job or retire? oooh that's a bit expensive innit? and it goes back to the tied cottage system (or land system, being a bit Scottish you should be across that one pud)
sorry sir, yes sir three bags full sir or you're out of a job and home.
This was happening in my lifetime.
-
Keith came out with a cracker to LauraK today, self referrals for internal bleeding;
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-gp-referrals
Bloody hell, blue skies thinking there.
-
Keith came out with a cracker to LauraK today, self referrals for internal bleeding;
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-gp-referrals
Bloody hell, blue skies thinking there.
He's on the right track though, if you have a chronic illness that is not going away ever, why do you have to keep going to get an annual referral can't it be at least every 5/10 years? It's an area to look at, but yes if you have obvious internal bleeding refer yourself to emergency.
-
There's a serious debate to be had here about the whole GP system.
It is based on the assumption that GPs who are GENERAL practitioners, not specialist experts, are capable of separating serious problems from trivial concerns, within a very short time.
I have had several experiences of this simply failing. The worst one was the death of my father 20-odd years ago. He went to the GP with chest pains. He was sent home with a bottle of Gaviscon. Two days later he died of a massive heart attack.
If there'd been a mechanism for him to get to see a specialist, rather than a not very competent GP (part of whose job is to limit access to specialist care) he might have survived.
I myself had a debilitating but non-life threatening problem that confined me to bed for three months, ten years back. The GP told me I just needed to rest. In my frustration, I researched my issue online, self diagnosed and found a treatment that cleared things up in days. Having a non-expert GENERALIST as the gatekeeper to the treatment process, who didn't even know what my problem was, extended my incapacitation for many weeks.
As I say, there is a serious debate here. But some folk will just want to play political games with it.
-
Think your spot on Billy
-
Ldr.
I have a very good friend who emigrated to the UK from Russia 25 years ago. He doesn't have many issues on which he thinks our society is worse than Russia's but he's horrified by our GP system. In Russia they don't have GPs acting as blocks to getting expert treatment. Every town has a large polyclinic, staffed by subject experts. If you attend with chest pains, you get seen by a cardiologist, not a GP who hasn't the skill to separate an impending heart attack from acid indigestion.
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
-
Keith came out with a cracker to LauraK today, self referrals for internal bleeding;
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-gp-referrals
Bloody hell, blue skies thinking there.
He's on the right track though, if you have a chronic illness that is not going away ever, why do you have to keep going to get an annual referral can't it be at least every 5/10 years? It's an area to look at, but yes if you have obvious internal bleeding refer yourself to emergency.
I agree that there should be an open debate on how to access specialist services, but for Starmer to choose internal bleeding as an example seems very strange.
The danger with self referral is that the worried well will consume a much higher percentage of specialist time, just as that resource is in limited supply. It is clear that some groups will be more assertive of their needs without a clinical diagnoses.
There is a need for a gatekeeper to screen medical needs as a first base, when we are not talking about emergency care.
The BMA were very clear in their response to Starmer.
The case BST sets out shows a weakness under the current system, but how do you speed access to the appropriate professional if you do not have a system of priority referrals?
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It make it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
As I said on here the other day, mate, Labour will win in spite of Keith, not because of him.
No party can be as bad as this government, but I'm not expecting the major changes that need to happen, to be forthcoming when Labour gets in.
-
But you didn't explain why other parties are not doing so well aye Steve?
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
they threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus, its own MP's sabotaging the labour campagin to get in power and the smears in the right wing press from the tories, oligarchs and corporations.
I know it wont happen but if it was up to me Tories and Labour should be finished as credible parties.
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
they threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus, its own MP's sabotaging the labour campagin to get in power and the smears in the right wing press from the tories, oligarchs and corporations.
I know it wont happen but if it was up to me Tories and Labour should be finished as credible parties.
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
Of course there will always be those who will vote for the Tory or Labour Party’s come what may, quite often because they hate “the other side” rather than for any positive reasons from “their side”.
I’m not sure that there will be a big enough vote for anyone else to break the model.
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
they threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus, its own MP's sabotaging the labour campagin to get in power and the smears in the right wing press from the tories, oligarchs and corporations.
I know it wont happen but if it was up to me Tories and Labour should be finished as credible parties.
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
Of course there will always be those who will vote for the Tory or Labour Party’s come what may, quite often because they hate “the other side” rather than for any positive reasons from “their side”.
I’m not sure that there will be a big enough vote for anyone else to break the model.
No Labour Party to the left of centre-left can win an election by majority. That has been proven.
-
Starmer didn't sack an MP for joining a picket line.
But facts, eh?
-
Labour frontbencher Sam Tarry sacked after giving TV interview on picket line during rail strike
The MP for Ilford South and shadow transport minister, was this morning at Euston station along with rail workers taking industrial action over pay and conditions.
The above from Sky news.com
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
they threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus, its own MP's sabotaging the labour campagin to get in power and the smears in the right wing press from the tories, oligarchs and corporations.
I know it wont happen but if it was up to me Tories and Labour should be finished as credible parties.
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
Waste of a vote then really. Which other party will challenge the Tories?
-
Labour frontbencher Sam Tarry sacked after giving TV interview on picket line during rail strike
The MP for Ilford South and shadow transport minister, was this morning at Euston station along with rail workers taking industrial action over pay and conditions.
The above from Sky news.com
Didn’t they say that he was sacked for making a statement to the media while he was there rather than for just being there hound?
-
An un-authorised statement I believe
-
Tarry had his own agenda that involved trying to get re-selected for his seat. It sited him to be on the front pages picking a fight with the leadership, because so many grassroots members are way to the left of Starmer. He broke party rules by organising a media appearance that wasn't authorised by the central party office. It was a calculated "f**k you" to the leadership, and they had little option but to sack him as a junior minister. Tarry and the Left found it useful to spin that as "MP sacked for going on picket line". Looks like some folk on both sides of the political divide swallowed that.
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
they threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus, its own MP's sabotaging the labour campagin to get in power and the smears in the right wing press from the tories, oligarchs and corporations.
I know it wont happen but if it was up to me Tories and Labour should be finished as credible parties.
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
Waste of a vote then really. Which other party will challenge the Tories?
Maybe needs a hung parliament to hold Labour to account, probably unlikely though.
I wonder if that is why they are trying to get rid of SNP so it gives them more seats in house of parliament
-
Sam Tarry was well discussed right here with all the usual suspects on the case.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=285534.0
-
How is Labour trying to get rid of the SNP?
-
Striking train drivers have had their demands met. An offered pay rise from £60k p/a to £65k p/a. The Labour left must be torn between solidarity and wanting to tax them more.
They rejected it and are striking again
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64303591.amp
-
How is Labour trying to get rid of the SNP?
Tories i meant, my error
-
Is Keir going to make NHS fully 100% a public service and bring ALL public services back into public hands.
I think this could be a sticky point for Labour in the next general election because people care about the NHS.
It's sucking up to the oligarchs and billionaires.
No wonder he is referred to as a 'red tory'.
I hope if he is exactly that then conservatives and labour can be finished as credible parties but the public are too stupid to vote for them or by not voting at all which I believe it should be mandatory to vote on the things you believe.
& in addition to that they should be held more to account like Mick Lynch says if they go back on a pledge.
I’m not sure that many people know what KS really stands for or what he proposes to do.
It makes it difficult for people (me included) to know who to support.
it is more than likely because the majority of the general public won't like what he is going to implement.
these political parties who put forward policies and go back on them should be held to account
So what are the policies he is going to implement rtid91. It would be good to know.
he has been the leader since what 2019 or 2020? Still not quite sure. I don't trust them enough to get my vote and people I know are the same.
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Cheers for that response. It is more or less what I and quite a few of my friends are thinking.
I remember when he (KS) got the job and we were told that he was the new Messiah.
they threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus, its own MP's sabotaging the labour campagin to get in power and the smears in the right wing press from the tories, oligarchs and corporations.
I know it wont happen but if it was up to me Tories and Labour should be finished as credible parties.
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
Waste of a vote then really. Which other party will challenge the Tories?
What if something comes about with Jeremy Corbyn now he is an independent (especially after how he has been treated by Labour) he might form his own party in conjunction with Mick Lynch as well, thing is they are getting out there telling people how things are and with all the following they have on a lot of the social media channels on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook etc especially young people (they'll need their ID of course)
Then you got a few hundred thousand alone on some of those channels especially the lawyer guy on Twitter. He talks a lot of sense to discredit the lies tories make https://twitter.com/peterstefanovi2
and then from all the people following all these channels there is PoliticsJoe as well and then you potentially got their family, friends, people down the pub which could spell trouble for Labour in the next election.
-
Sam Tarry was well discussed right here with all the usual suspects on the case.
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=285534.0
I'm surprised you brought that up, Syd. You took a right pasting there. Even those that aren't the "usual suspects" came out against Keith.
You really must try harder if you want to catch us all out.
-
The sooner you master comprehension the forum will be a better place Steve
-
The sooner you master comprehension the forum will be a better place Steve
You didn't put a full stop at the end of all that, Syd.
I accept that you can't be as perfect as me, but you could concentrate a little more.
-
noone could be as perfect as you Stevie boy
-
SS.
If this is the best the Tory thinkers can come up with then I think you're right that they haven't a prayer
https://conservativehome.com/2023/01/13/nat-wei-five-groups-of-target-voters-we-need-to-win-over-at-the-next-election-and-what-we-can-offer-them/
This genius is basically saying "Let's help a bunch of people that we've f**ked over for the past 13 years, and chuck a bit of Culture War around as a garnish on top.
20 years out of power might focus their minds on thinking what their point is for the rest of the century.
-
RTID91 you are going to have to accept at sometime or other if you want change and all the things you post on here about you are going to have to change the government.
Otherwise you are going to have to accept that the incompetence, mismanagement corruption and cronyism will continue forever. It's that simple.
While the tories are in power and your butt points to the ground they will jump around and magic up all sorts of shit to make it sound as though they are going to change but all they are doing is distracting you from getting what you want.
They will never ever voluntarily sort out the country to be fairer they will never ever voluntarily give up anything they don't have to. It's just not going to happen, ever.
If you can't or won't accept that then you are wasting your time and energy and this goes for everyone that wants change not just you.
To effect that change there needs to be a party that can attract broad support to get to first base and then build on that, a max of 2 years, the clock is ticking.
Labour will not hold this massive lead in the polls for ever and especially as it draws closer to the GE as all the tory media and donors fall in behind them along with a goodly slice of those 'neutrals' you will never see as many hats and rabbits in your lifetime.
You need to be inside the tent, putting all that energy to use, if and when success arrives only then can the really hard steady slow slog to make change begin.
This may be hard to swallow and you can bang on for the next two years or forever and what you get will not be perfect, but it at least it won't be tory.
These are all fairly simple straight forward and obvious points but that is how it has to be no distractions, no rabbit holes no wavering, on the other hand if you have some magic (not dreams) then please share it.
-
Labour think that the next general election win is a given but those on the streets last night protesting against the anti-strike bill and on social media certainly won't be voting for a red tory
Do they? Then why has Starmer said they should take nothing for granted and told the party to prepare and act as if they were behind in the polls?
-
Keir Starmer for PM? No thank you I'll use my vote elsewhere and obviously not with the Tories. I imagine there will be a lot of people who are the same.
They don't represent working people. And for the fact he sacked or demoted an MP or whatever it was for joining a picket line and even his own MP's are standing against it.
Keir as always.... SILENT
Yes that's what votes are for and you should use it. Although dont be suprised if you get a different outcome to that you voted for by the way you use it. Who do want to be PM and which party do you want in power then after the next election if not Starmer? Are you going to vote to keep the Tories in power - or for the person best placed to kick them out?
-
It is not just a question of Tory or Labour, Sunak or Keith....it is also do the policies and principles on offer meet your standards.
There is little point in change if the agenda to be followed is a neo-liberal repeat of previous administrations.
The objective is to usher in a new suite of policies which support the interests of working class people.
Sunak is a waste of space, but Keith is only offering new managers of the same discredited system, not a new agenda.
Habitual lies to get the leadership, constant reversal of stated pledges, a shadow cabinet full of yes men.
Anti trade union, refusing to back industrial action on cost of living crises, anti socialist in the unlawful purge of dissent, and failure to bring key economic sectors into the public realm, like water, energy and rail, is not a transformative offer.
Saying to people vote for me, I may be slightly less shit than him, is not an attractive ticket.
What has Starmer got to offer Labour supporters to enthuse voters?
Starmer has set out no vision to meet the future, only a return to the position which caused many to lose faith with Labour with the disastrous vote share in 2010.
-
It is not just a question of Tory or Labour, Sunak or Keith....it is also do the policies and principles on offer meet your standards.
There is little point in change if the agenda to be followed is a neo-liberal repeat of previous administrations.
The objective is to usher in a new suite of policies which support the interests of working class people.
Sunak is a waste of space, but Keith is only offering new managers of the same discredited system, not a new agenda.
Habitual lies to get the leadership, constant reversal of stated pledges, a shadow cabinet full of yes men.
Anti trade union, refusing to back industrial action on cost of living crises, anti socialist in the unlawful purge of dissent, and failure to bring key economic sectors into the public realm, like water, energy and rail, is not a transformative offer.
Saying to people vote for me, I may be slightly less shit than him, is not an attractive ticket.
What has Starmer got to offer Labour supporters to enthuse voters?
Starmer has set out no vision to meet the future, only a return to the position which caused many to lose faith with Labour with the disastrous vote share in 2010.
Brilliant post, Albie.
-
Either Starmer or Sunak (or maybe Johnson if the Tories kick Sunak out before the GE) will run the country after it. Good luck with your choice of affecting who that may be.
If you wish to change the policies that Labour & Starmer has then you need to join the party and then persuade others in your branch, then the party overall to adopt the policies you think they should have. That's how democracy works in this country.
-
Either Starmer or Sunak (or maybe Johnson if the Tories kick Sunak out before the GE) will run the country after it. Good luck with your choice of affecting who that may be.
If you wish to change the policies that Labour & Starmer has then you need to join the party and then persuade others in your branch, then the party overall to adopt the policies you think they should have. That's how democracy works in this country.
Given the facts since Keith became leader it's pretty evident the direction of travel the Labour Party has decided to plot .
Simply put if you are on the left you won't get selected to stand in any forthcoming election .
Absolute waste of time even contemplating any grass roots activism that promote left wing or socialist policies , complete pyssing in the wind .
Whilst I agree that voting Labour is the only way to be rid of the Tories let's not for one minute pretend that they are going to offer the kind of change that this country desperately needs and a shift away from neoliberalism .
Better than the Tories isn't exactly a high bar .
-
It is not just a question of Tory or Labour, Sunak or Keith....it is also do the policies and principles on offer meet your standards.
There is little point in change if the agenda to be followed is a neo-liberal repeat of previous administrations.
The objective is to usher in a new suite of policies which support the interests of working class people.
Sunak is a waste of space, but Keith is only offering new managers of the same discredited system, not a new agenda.
Habitual lies to get the leadership, constant reversal of stated pledges, a shadow cabinet full of yes men.
Anti trade union, refusing to back industrial action on cost of living crises, anti socialist in the unlawful purge of dissent, and failure to bring key economic sectors into the public realm, like water, energy and rail, is not a transformative offer.
Saying to people vote for me, I may be slightly less shit than him, is not an attractive ticket.
What has Starmer got to offer Labour supporters to enthuse voters?
Starmer has set out no vision to meet the future, only a return to the position which caused many to lose faith with Labour with the disastrous vote share in 2010.
Yes. Because Labour in 2010 was identical to the Tories.
Give me f**king strength. The intellectual vacuousness of the far Left...
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
-
Put both brain cells in contact before replying, BST.
No-one thinks Labour in 2010 was the same as the Tories.
The point is that the policy offer did not resonate....Labour continued the decline in votes that was underway from the previous new Labour administration.
Intellectual vacuity eh, have a good look in the mirror Lad!
-
Albie.
What exactly do you think it was in Labour's policy platform that led to the loss of support in 2010?
-
It is not just a question of Tory or Labour, Sunak or Keith....it is also do the policies and principles on offer meet your standards.
There is little point in change if the agenda to be followed is a neo-liberal repeat of previous administrations.
The objective is to usher in a new suite of policies which support the interests of working class people.
Sunak is a waste of space, but Keith is only offering new managers of the same discredited system, not a new agenda.
Habitual lies to get the leadership, constant reversal of stated pledges, a shadow cabinet full of yes men.
Anti trade union, refusing to back industrial action on cost of living crises, anti socialist in the unlawful purge of dissent, and failure to bring key economic sectors into the public realm, like water, energy and rail, is not a transformative offer.
Saying to people vote for me, I may be slightly less shit than him, is not an attractive ticket.
What has Starmer got to offer Labour supporters to enthuse voters?
Starmer has set out no vision to meet the future, only a return to the position which caused many to lose faith with Labour with the disastrous vote share in 2010.
Brilliant post, Albie.
And you wonder why I call you naive
-
https://twitter.com/sarahconnorfem/status/1615422902127497222?s=46&t=-cy4M9ZP08RAu_gTTFG4EA
I can see this being a way in which Labour loses votes. Wait for the Labour MP reaction at the end. Nothing to counter any of her points in his childish response.
-
tiny storm in small teacup, he's apologised (in writing to her) for the delivery but stands by the content
-
It’s okay, he apologised. :lol:
-
tiny storm in small teacup, he's apologised (in writing to her) for the delivery but stands by the content
Exactly, he stands by the content. That’s a problem too.
-
then you should explain why
-
then you should explain why
My personal opinion aligns with that of Miriam Cates, I can’t find any issue with anything she said. It will align with a lot of the electorate as well, not just the ones who are active in political and cultural discussion on Twitter.
-
It's just a bit stitched is all, does it frighten you?
-
It's just a bit stitched is all, does it frighten you?
You’re not going to change my views and I’m not going to change yours. Don’t be so patronising.
The point I was making was that it will be a sticking point for a lot of the general electorate, that is all. And making them out to be small-minded bigots about it won’t change that either.
-
Not trying to change your views nc, I'm trying to understand you, what is it that you don't like?
-
Syd, why are you so interested in UK politics?
-
Cos I was born their have family and friends there and politics is international how about you RR?
-
It is not just a question of Tory or Labour, Sunak or Keith....it is also do the policies and principles on offer meet your standards.
There is little point in change if the agenda to be followed is a neo-liberal repeat of previous administrations.
The objective is to usher in a new suite of policies which support the interests of working class people.
Sunak is a waste of space, but Keith is only offering new managers of the same discredited system, not a new agenda.
Habitual lies to get the leadership, constant reversal of stated pledges, a shadow cabinet full of yes men.
Anti trade union, refusing to back industrial action on cost of living crises, anti socialist in the unlawful purge of dissent, and failure to bring key economic sectors into the public realm, like water, energy and rail, is not a transformative offer.
Saying to people vote for me, I may be slightly less shit than him, is not an attractive ticket.
What has Starmer got to offer Labour supporters to enthuse voters?
Starmer has set out no vision to meet the future, only a return to the position which caused many to lose faith with Labour with the disastrous vote share in 2010.
Brilliant post, Albie.
And you wonder why I call you naive
Two things. First of all, I don't wonder about anything regarding your opinion of me, because it's a total irrelevance.
Secondly, when it comes to intellect and political knowledge, Albie is light years ahead of you, so it's hardly surprising that I value his posts more than yours.
OK?
-
Firstly why write about something of total irrelevance, secondly I call Albie naive because he like you not only doesn't have an alternative plan he doesn't have a plan.
PS if you were at all correct about the 'in spite of' garbage, you'd expect all the other parties to be % wise doing better than labour right Steve?
-
Firstly why write about something of total irrelevance, secondly I call Albie naive because he like you not only doesn't have an alternative plan he doesn't have a plan.
PS if you were at all correct about the 'in spite of' garbage, you'd expect all the other parties to be % wise doing better than labour right Steve?
You're not listening to BST enough. He's repeatedly said, and quite rightly so, that opposition parties don't win elections, governments lose them.
Labour's ahead in the polls because this government's so atrocious that anyone could lead the Labour Party to victory in 2024. Even Donald Duck, or even you; or even worse still, Keith.
-
And like Albie when I ask him, you don't answer the questions posed
-
Irony alert , again.
Bloke who never gives a straight answer to a question complains when others wont answer his questions.
-
And like Albie when I ask him, you don't answer the questions posed
What questions haven't I answered? Do you mean that nonsense about an alternative plan? There isn't an alternative plan. Labour will win in 2024 despite having a sh*t leader.
That's what I've said all along.
-
By the man who cannot stop throwing insults
-
By the man who cannot stop throwing insults
I take it your referring to my post, no insult here just an observation that most have already made.
-
And like Albie when I ask him, you don't answer the questions posed
What questions haven't I answered? Do you mean that nonsense about an alternative plan? There isn't an alternative plan. Labour will win in 2024 despite having a sh*t leader.
That's what I've said all along.
why do you carry on like this Steve, is it that difficult, how do you get a leader with policies from the left or far left into power?
Where's your plan?
steve! ....... STEVE!
-
Cos I was born their have family and friends there and politics is international how about you RR?
I live here, you don't
-
Cos I was born their have family and friends there and politics is international how about you RR?
I live here, you don't
My dad's bigger than your dad
-
''Boris Johnson given £1m donation by former Brexit party backer
Tech investor Christopher Harborne’s gift to former PM’s personal office is one of biggest ever recorded to individual UK politician''
''Boris Johnson has received a donation of £1m from a Thai-based British businessman who had previously given millions of pounds to Nigel Farage’s Brexit party, the newly released register of MPs’ interests has shown''
''Harborne, who began as a management consultant, has lived in Thailand for about 20 years, where he is also known under the Thai name of Chakrit Sakunkrit''
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/12/boris-johnson-given-1m-donation-by-former-brexit-party-backer
hmmm
-
Hmmm what?
If the donation is declared and all above board then what is wrong with it.
-
Cos I was born their have family and friends there and politics is international how about you RR?
I live here, you don't
When I corrected you about the bbc the other day a little bell rang and then I remembered you've done this before, reminding me how the forum works ....... for you at any rate, 'you correct me even though I'm wrong' and there'll be payback .....
he he, nice one RR.
-
Cos I was born their have family and friends there and politics is international how about you RR?
I live here, you don't
My dad's bigger than your dad
Yes probably is, my Dad died down the pit when I was 10
-
Cos I was born their have family and friends there and politics is international how about you RR?
I live here, you don't
When I corrected you about the bbc the other day a little bell rang and then I remembered you've done this before, reminding me how the forum works ....... for you at any rate, 'you correct me even though I'm wrong' and there'll be payback .....
he he, nice one RR.
I replied to your question, what are you on about me correcting you BBC?
-
Sorry to hear that RR, my old man died at 72 through smoking, he wasn't fit enough to make the army in the war and had to go down the pit, which didn't last long because of his health so they gave him a surface job. We come from a long line of coal hewers. One at least couldn't write and signed with a X. Too much information, maybe but it's why I'm passionate in having a fairer society in the UK and in Oz.
-
Most sensible people don't want to see mass public sector pay rises and subsequent tax rises they want to see something proportionate.
"Most people"? The most people you know must be different to the most people I know.
That the government cannot afford to pay all public sector workers inflation matching pay rises is simply not true; it's a political decision. Increase taxes in certain areas, levy additional windfall taxes, and it is more than affordable.
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
There was a caller in at one of the news stations suggesting Keir Starmer is putting on a front to appease the right wing media and then bring about a Jeremy Corbyn style of policies aimed at the working people, I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that in all honesty.
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
There was a caller in at one of the news stations suggesting Keir Starmer is putting on a front to appease the right wing media and then bring about a Jeremy Corbyn style of policies aimed at the working people, I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that in all honesty.
Who knows what Starmer thinks or what he proposes to do when they win the GE.
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
There was a caller in at one of the news stations suggesting Keir Starmer is putting on a front to appease the right wing media and then bring about a Jeremy Corbyn style of policies aimed at the working people, I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that in all honesty.
Who knows what Starmer thinks or what he proposes to do when they win the GE.
Labour sabotaged their last election campaign by going against Jeremy Corbyn, what credible political party does that
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
There was a caller in at one of the news stations suggesting Keir Starmer is putting on a front to appease the right wing media and then bring about a Jeremy Corbyn style of policies aimed at the working people, I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that in all honesty.
Who knows what Starmer thinks or what he proposes to do when they win the GE.
Labour sabotaged their last election campaign by going against Jeremy Corbyn, what credible political party does that
You what?
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
There was a caller in at one of the news stations suggesting Keir Starmer is putting on a front to appease the right wing media and then bring about a Jeremy Corbyn style of policies aimed at the working people, I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that in all honesty.
Who knows what Starmer thinks or what he proposes to do when they win the GE.
Labour sabotaged their last election campaign by going against Jeremy Corbyn, what credible political party does that
You what?
What's a matter Billy didn't they cover it on Twitter ?
Get your head out of your ass man .
https://youtu.be/NFBDzK1qREY
-
As set out in the 850 page leaked report into sabotage by Labour right wingers, backed up by the Forde Report, BST.
We covered this in the topic "The Labour Files", in which AJ presented the info in the data leak on conspiracy to deceive the membership.
Here you go;
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=286068.0
-
But, but, but, Starmer must be good, the Labour Party has a massive lead in the polls.
I agree with that post above by albie that Starmer offers little to attract voters, except of course those who vote Labour whatever the circumstances.
There was a caller in at one of the news stations suggesting Keir Starmer is putting on a front to appease the right wing media and then bring about a Jeremy Corbyn style of policies aimed at the working people, I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that in all honesty.
Who knows what Starmer thinks or what he proposes to do when they win the GE.
Labour sabotaged their last election campaign by going against Jeremy Corbyn, what credible political party does that
[/quote
The Forde report found: 2017 election campaign clashes
Anti-Corbyn staffers in Labour HQ did not deliberately try to throw the election, as some leftwingers have suggested – but did set up a secret operation, channelling funds to MPs who they wanted to protect. Loto, meanwhile, sought to support its own favoured MPs.
''We find that both HQ staff and Loto staff wanted the party to win with as many of their favoured MPs in place as possible, which prevented fully objective decision-making; the two sides were trying to win in different ways''
''Chaos in Corbyn’s office
There was hostility from Labour HQ towards Corbyn’s office, but his operation appeared deeply dysfunctional.
We have heard from a number of staff who worked in Loto in this period that the operation was unstructured and at times chaotic, with a lack of clear decision-making and reporting lines and, in particular, a reluctance on the part of Jeremy Corbyn himself to make and communicate unequivocal decisions''
Here's a summary of the Forde Report:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/19/key-takeaways-forde-report-labour-factionalism
-
Do facts actually mean anything to the posters immediately above?
-
Do facts actually mean anything to the posters immediately above?
The only name immediately above your post is YOU .
-
And you wonder why people have arguments, Tyke you blindly followed a factually incorrect post because it's what you always want to hear, truth or not.
-
Now, will those above that have been shown to be wrong accept that or will they jump in the next time this subject comes up say the same because it's what they believe despite the facts.
I doubt any of you have read the report I certainly haven't but if you dispute the summary you could of course read the Forde report, make notes and put them up for debate.
-
Of all the Betrayal Myths of the Far Left, the idea that Corbyn got pummelled out of sight in 2019 because he was undermined from within is the biggest comfort blanket going.
-
Of all the Betrayal Myths of the Far Left, the idea that Corbyn got pummelled out of sight in 2019 because he was undermined from within is the biggest comfort blanket going.
You know what Billy in many respects your just as bad as the wealthy golf club bores who voted in Liz Truss .
There are many in the Labour Party during Corbyn's tenure who are simply a set of bstrds and they will continue to be a set of bstrd's in government .
I'll be here to remind you of it when they govern this country .
You can count on it .
-
Tyke.
Yeah whatever. You bathe yourself in the warm glow that you and Corbyn were right all along and his abject failure was everyone else's fault.
-
Tyke.
Yeah whatever. You bathe yourself in the warm glow that you and Corbyn were right all along and his abject failure was everyone else's fault.
The difference between me and you Billy is I'll call it out irrespective of my own political beliefs .
Corbyn was a weak man let me say that , anybody with a backbone would have thrown his internal enemies out of the party and not thought twice about it , unfortunately he wasn't that kind of politician and preferred to try and work with these bstrds .
His Brexit Secretary hardly did him any favours either with his ambiguous approach although again Corbyn was his boss and should have put him back in his box .
Anybody who can't answer the question of pressing the Red Button when threatened with a nuclear attack deserves to be slaughtered by the electorate .
His policies however were superb and it remains to be seen how many of the promises Keith made to build on Corbyn's tenure come to fruition .
Personally next to none would be my prediction .
But hey ho it makes you electable to live inside Thatcher's tent .
Well done .
-
For sale to the highest bidder, Labour Party policy;
https://pdfhost.io/v/DaG3cKrPN_PortlandHowLabourWorks
The deplorable Alastair Campbell has teamed up with ex Sun journo George Pascoe Watson to develop a prospectus for influence.
After cash for questions, comes cash for policies, I suppose!
Keith trawling new depths here.
-
For sale to the highest bidder, Labour Party policy;
https://pdfhost.io/v/DaG3cKrPN_PortlandHowLabourWorks
The deplorable Alastair Campbell has teamed up with ex Sun journo George Pascoe Watson to develop a prospectus for influence.
After cash for questions, comes cash for policies, I suppose!
Keith trawling new depths here.
Alastair Campbell is a despicable character.
F*cking good bagpipes player though.
-
Tyke.
Yeah whatever. You bathe yourself in the warm glow that you and Corbyn were right all along and his abject failure was everyone else's fault.
The difference between me and you Billy is I'll call it out irrespective of my own political beliefs .
Corbyn was a weak man let me say that , anybody with a backbone would have thrown his internal enemies out of the party and not thought twice about it , unfortunately he wasn't that kind of politician and preferred to try and work with these bstrds .
His Brexit Secretary hardly did him any favours either with his ambiguous approach although again Corbyn was his boss and should have put him back in his box .
Anybody who can't answer the question of pressing the Red Button when threatened with a nuclear attack deserves to be slaughtered by the electorate .
His policies however were superb and it remains to be seen how many of the promises Keith made to build on Corbyn's tenure come to fruition .
Personally next to none would be my prediction .
But hey ho it makes you electable to live inside Thatcher's tent .
Well done .
Except you have been a critic of labour for what seems to be forever and yet have only recently almost begrudgingly thrown your hat in the ring.
-
For sale to the highest bidder, Labour Party policy;
https://pdfhost.io/v/DaG3cKrPN_PortlandHowLabourWorks
The deplorable Alastair Campbell has teamed up with ex Sun journo George Pascoe Watson to develop a prospectus for influence.
After cash for questions, comes cash for policies, I suppose!
Keith trawling new depths here.
What has this got to do with Starmer? It is a private company who commissioned two 'journalists' to write a booklet.
-
Nothing like this happens without the approval of Labour head office, Wilts.
Starmer signed off on this charm offensive to draw in corporate sponsors as a key part of the election strategy to embed business interests at the heart of Blue Labour.
The idea of paying for policy influence is directly opposed to the democratic objective of forming a manifesto based on ethical first principles.
The aim is to close the resource gap to the Tories, who explicitly represent commercial and investment interests, and in doing so redefine Labour as a Tory sub-group.
Corporate capture and the adoption of a programme not directly in the public interest, or in the support of low income working people, is clearly against the founding principles of Labour.
No wonder Keith and Reeves are not coming up with effective solutions to the energy cost of living crisis.......who pays the piper, calls the tune!
-
What's your source Albie?
-
Gabriel Pogrund, investigative journo of the Sunday Times.
-
I'm not sure I understand your beef here Albie. What is it specifically in that document that's got you so het up?
-
Gabriel Pogrund, investigative journo of the Sunday Times.
Gabriel Pogrund doesn't say any of that in his story.
It is a private investment company commissioning a booklet for their investors to get to know the Labour Party better as they are fairly sure they will be in government soon. It will gain absolutely zero money for the Labour Party but is a forward look for investment funds as to what they can expect under Labout so THEY can continue to make money. It's called capitalism.
But yes, Reeves and Starmer know they too have to speak to the bankers and trust funds to get them on side. John McDonnell knew that. Which is why he went to Davos and spoke at the Mansion House.
-
There's a stream of thinking on the Left that thinks business is always and everywhere the enemy.
And they wonder why they never get elected...
-
There's a stream of thinking on the Left that thinks business is always and everywhere the enemy.
And they wonder why they never get elected...
And there is a stream of thinking on the left who know they have to work with business to get elected. See John McDonnell.
-
I entirely agree Wilts.
McDonnell was on the Preston show this week talking more sense on Ukraine and the need to help them militarily than Corbyn and the Stop the War Putin acolytes have ever uttered.
There's an interesting alternative history where McDonnell instead of Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party in 2015. McDonnell is a far stronger intellect and far more hard headed in general. We COULD have had a genuinely socialist economic manifesto in 2017, without the stupid, immature and frankly, dangerous baggage that Corbyn brought on foreign policy. McDonnell would never, ever have let himself come across as someone who hated Britain - the easy jibe to Corbyn that I heard again and again on the doorsteps.
-
Transparency eh!
Like Peter Mandelson, Alistair Campbell is back in the fold of Labour operations but without any official responsibilities.
His media profile has increased despite having no recognised position.
Part of this informal role is to create these channels of communication to business interests and media, without the need to acknowledge Starmer as the initiator.
This is one example of plausible deniability in action.
Portland Communications PR are a private company with a chequered history in political lobbying.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/portland-communications-shows-public-affairs-firms-cant-afford-scandals-analysis-768333
The brochure stresses Portland were founded by an advisor to former PM Tony Blair, Portland are also alleged to have controversial involvement with the failed coup against Jeremy Corbyn.
Those who are rightly concerned with the influence of 55 Tufton St on UK politics, should be worried about Labour canvassing for donations in the same pool.
It would be unwise to disregard the activities of Portland Communications PR.
Aside from the many glaring errors in the brochure, the idea that influence can be bought, or that this is acceptable, is contrary to core Labour values.
The sales pitch is that "open for business" means that vested interests can pitch for leverage beyond public scrutiny until after the fact.
Arms length donations via a third party, or a shell company, are another method of evading detection.
The advantage here is that due parliamentary process considers only what is presented at the time.
The rise of "dark money" in UK politics has been well discussed in relation to the Tories, but some like to have a foot in both camps.
Always a modus operandi for the Tories, Labour are looking to draw financial support by the same means.
This was a source of income to Blair New Labour under Lord Levy, and is now being revisited.
The idea that Wilts suggests, no cash will be received by Labour in consequence of these initiatives, is just bonkers...that is the entire point!
The about face on policies such as nationalisation are part of this revised offer to potential backers, and the repositioning of Labour as a corporate lobbying tool.
The important point is whether you think this approach to funding is acceptable, or if you believe no supporter contributing campaign funds does so without expecting a payback.
If it is the first, then what screening criteria do you use, and what red lines do you use to prevent the compromise of key policies?
Arms manufacturers, private health interests, foreign government proxies.....fill your boots!
-
I entirely agree Wilts.
McDonnell was on the Preston show this week talking more sense on Ukraine and the need to help them militarily than Corbyn and the Stop the War Putin acolytes have ever uttered.
There's an interesting alternative history where McDonnell instead of Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party in 2015. McDonnell is a far stronger intellect and far more hard headed in general. We COULD have had a genuinely socialist economic manifesto in 2017, without the stupid, immature and frankly, dangerous baggage that Corbyn brought on foreign policy. McDonnell would never, ever have let himself come across as someone who hated Britain - the easy jibe to Corbyn that I heard again and again on the doorsteps.
Is this the same John McDonnell who: -
- claimed his hobbies included "generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism"
- said IRA terrorists should be "honoured for their bravery"
- thought it would be amusing to quote from the 'little red book' of the biggest mass murderer in human history at the Parliamentary despatch box???
Yes clearly someone with both the strong intellect and hard headedness to woo the floating centrist voter. Still at least his views are not stupid, immature or dangerous in any way.
-
I entirely agree Wilts.
McDonnell was on the Preston show this week talking more sense on Ukraine and the need to help them militarily than Corbyn and the Stop the War Putin acolytes have ever uttered.
There's an interesting alternative history where McDonnell instead of Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour party in 2015. McDonnell is a far stronger intellect and far more hard headed in general. We COULD have had a genuinely socialist economic manifesto in 2017, without the stupid, immature and frankly, dangerous baggage that Corbyn brought on foreign policy. McDonnell would never, ever have let himself come across as someone who hated Britain - the easy jibe to Corbyn that I heard again and again on the doorsteps.
Is this the same John McDonnell who: -
- claimed his hobbies included "generally fermenting the overthrow of capitalism"
- said IRA terrorists should be "honoured for their bravery"
- thought it would be amusing to quote from the 'little red book' of the biggest mass murderer in human history at the Parliamentary despatch box???
Yes clearly someone with both the strong intellect and hard headedness to woo the floating centrist voter. Still at least his views are not stupid, immature or dangerous in any way.
Yes that's the one. Shadow Chancellor in the Corbyn Labour Party in which role he did a lot of canvassing with city groups and financiers. Which is what we are talking about.
-
By his own account, John Mcdonnell went to Davos with rather different intentions to those folk on here are saying;
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnells-warning-global-elite-davos-gathering-rich-powerful-120194
You could see it as naive, or as principled but misguided.
What it isn't is pandering to the elite for crumbs in the begging bowl!
-
Branton.
I've criticised McDonnell often enough for his stance on the IRA. I don't need any lectures in that. It was stupid, offensive and immature.
But that was a quarter of a century ago. Thatcher gave succour to General Pinochet who killed many times more political opponents than the IRA, but that doesn't stop her still being an idol of the Right, and it didn't stop her winning 3 elections.
Over the past decade, McDonnell has made far more sensible and hard headed calls on foreign policy than the Corbynistas ever did. And, unlike the people on Right and Left who brought you your Brexit, he wouldn't have allowed our politics to be infested by Putin's breath.
You tend not to get perfection in politics, especially over a long career. McDonnell has, unlike most of the Left, moved away from the student common room take on foreign policy. And he understood the working of the capitalist economy, and how to make it work for ordinary people better than anyone else in Parliament.
He wanted a socialist future, but he grew to realise that doesn't come by hoping it happens. It will come, if it ever does, by first of all working hard-headedly WITH business and business interests, and by standing up to dictators who have no interest in either socialism or democracy. Hence his current support for arming Ukraine.
-
Albie, not sure who Nick Martin is but he's worth listening to ..............
Nick Martin explains why the best course of action for the Green Party is to give their all to elect councillors who will increase the prospects for climate action in local communities. But at the national level, the vain quest for more MPs should give way to a recognition that the best hope for a decisive change in national direction is the election of Labour government.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/green-party-strategy/
-
I’ve asked this before, but what exactly is Starmers policy for Channel Crossing Migrants.?
This issue isn’t going away.
If/when labour take up the poisoned chalice, they too will have to deal with this. Or not, as the case may be.
-
I'm not sure there's anyone NR who has an answer to that one it absolutely is the poisoned chalice.
I thought Labour's report on credit card spend was interesting and a good message to send out actually on waste in the public sector, the opposition feels much more co-ordinated of late which is a big positive. I wouldn't have used Rayner though she's a bit hypocritical talking about that in my view.
-
Billy
You're lauding McDonnell by comparing him favourably a) intellectually to Corbyn and b) morally against Thatcher. I can't help but think you've set your bar exceedingly low on both counts.
It's fair to compare McDonnell's or Corbyn's/Abbott's/Livingstone's viewpoints across a wide range of subjects to student common room politics. Yet wrong to dismiss these as simply that. Their views expressed, largely when backbenchers with little hope of public office, on the IRA/Mao/Israel/Castro/Monarchy/Nuclear weapons/appeasement were genuine and wholly out of step with UK public opinion.
They still think the same way to a large extent. As McDonnell's appalling brandishing of the little red book in Parliament and his comments that he'd like to go back to 1980 and assassinate Thatcher or that in the round Chrurchill was a villain due to Tonypandy in 1911 prove.
Whenever these comments, including historic ones, are brought to light by the right wing press Mondeo Man rolls his eyes, chuckles and thinks 'I'm not voting for those nutcases'. The Loony Left is a right wing construct but McDonnell and co handed it to them on a silver platter.
The thing is there is no intellectual linkage between the socialist economic policy they also espouse and these 'loony' world views. Their 'loony' views are a result of the youth culture they grew up into 50 some years ago not socialism
If McDonnell wants a socialist future and genuinely is a hard-headed intellectual then he'd have the common sense to disappear from public view. Leave the socialist fight to a younger generation who share his economic perspective but not his out of touch world view.
The old Left had their opportunity in 2017 against an opponent with no discernible polices and the charisma of a brick wall. They failed. The public's opinion of them on the doorstep in 2017 and 2019 should tell them all they need to know. Time to be put out to pasture.
-
Angela Raynor:
''However, she was asked on Times Radio this morning about her own spending habits, including using £249 of taxpayers’ money on AirPods.
“I’m actually using the equipment right now as I’m speaking to you on the iPad,” said said. “This is what I’m using to do my job – in fact I think it’s three years old now – to do my work as an MP and it’s totally transparent.”
Raynor:
''I don’t think the £1,600 on that is the same as millions of pounds that is being used on these credit cards in an inappropriate way. You know, we need to make sure there’s transparency and that the public are getting value for money.
I can absolutely justify my use of using electronic equipment to do my job, especially when I’m not – during the pandemic – when I wasn’t in the office in Westminster. And as I say, now I’m speaking to you on that very iPad that was purchased''
The Guardian.
Any that have claimed a laptop, headphones, earphones, laptop bag, briefcase etc as work expenses, please form a queue.
-
By his own account, John Mcdonnell went to Davos with rather different intentions to those folk on here are saying;
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnells-warning-global-elite-davos-gathering-rich-powerful-120194
You could see it as naive, or as principled but misguided.
What it isn't is pandering to the elite for crumbs in the begging bowl!
Other than to discuss how a Labour government with him as chancellor would work with interntaional capitalism, what intention are folk saying he went to Davos with- I must have missed it?
-
Yes, it looks like you missed it Wilts.
It was well covered in the media at the time:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/john-mcdonnell-an-unlikely-davos-man
John went on Facebook afterwards to explain his actions:
https://www.facebook.com/johnmcdonnellmp/videos/john-mcdonnell-davos/10155950914740833/
-
Angela Raynor:
''However, she was asked on Times Radio this morning about her own spending habits, including using £249 of taxpayers’ money on AirPods.
“I’m actually using the equipment right now as I’m speaking to you on the iPad,” said said. “This is what I’m using to do my job – in fact I think it’s three years old now – to do my work as an MP and it’s totally transparent.”
Raynor:
''I don’t think the £1,600 on that is the same as millions of pounds that is being used on these credit cards in an inappropriate way. You know, we need to make sure there’s transparency and that the public are getting value for money.
I can absolutely justify my use of using electronic equipment to do my job, especially when I’m not – during the pandemic – when I wasn’t in the office in Westminster. And as I say, now I’m speaking to you on that very iPad that was purchased''
The Guardian.
Any that have claimed a laptop, headphones, earphones, laptop bag, briefcase etc as work expenses, please form a queue.
Yep I had my work headphones paid for by work. £8 a pair I think they cost. I believe she claimed for 2 pairs because she lost a pair (I'd have made my guys pay for the second pair theirself to be honest).
But it's a storm in a teacup and just one example of pure wastage. Why does Sunak fly around everywhere? The bigger travesty is the staggering rents they claim, I think Rayner claims something like £2.5k a month to cover flat rent, crazy money.
-
Compared to the PPE wastage and cronyism it is a storm in a teacup which in itself is dwarfed by the mismanagement of the economy the there you go.
added
I think it's small beer myself but I assume labour have done a bit of polling and found that the public don't like it and compared the spend now to what it was previously. To call out AR in isolation without comparison to all other MPs is not one of those equivalency things aye? you may have done the numbers pud but at least you should show the figures.
-
Yes, it looks like you missed it Wilts.
It was well covered in the media at the time:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/john-mcdonnell-an-unlikely-davos-man
John went on Facebook afterwards to explain his actions:
https://www.facebook.com/johnmcdonnellmp/videos/john-mcdonnell-davos/10155950914740833/
It may have been covered in the media at the time albie - but you said folks on here? Presumably you meant in this thread?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/02/starmer-urged-to-act-after-councillor-greg-marshall-barred-from-contesting-red-wall-broxtowe-seat
Seems to be happening on a pretty regular basis now.
We would condemn outright other countries doing this as none democratic and despotic regimes. Funny how Starmer's Labour party consider this is ok and what the people of these contested boroughs want?
I know Starmer is desperate for power but ?
It seems tyrannical fascist dictatorial rule is to be the new Uk!