The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[KentVillan]

 

I think Starmer is right to say this stuff about NHS reform from an election comms point of view… it’s what a lot of people think, and he needs to avoid being seen as a “spend spend spend” Leftie. Plus there are things that could be restructured sensibly.

But it is mostly nonsense. The NHS’s problems are 90% lack of investment, not structural. It’s just so obvious when you look at comparative spending levels across OECD countries - we’re right at the bottom, and we have the health service you’d expect if you underinvest and underpay staff.

[Demitri_C]

5 hours ago, KentVillan said:

 

I think Starmer is right to say this stuff about NHS reform from an election comms point of view… it’s what a lot of people think, and he needs to avoid being seen as a “spend spend spend” Leftie. Plus there are things that could be restructured sensibly.

But it is mostly nonsense. The NHS’s problems are 90% lack of investment, not structural. It’s just so obvious when you look at comparative spending levels across OECD countries - we’re right at the bottom, and we have the health service you’d expect if you underinvest and underpay staff.

The nhs have been given a lot of money- what i dont get is why the money given isnt given to increase  WAGES for nursing staff to attract more into the field.

Staffing and as well as the lack of hospitals is fundamentally is one of the biggest issues we have here. Instead of just chucking the money with no clear plan or direction 

[OutByEaster?]

8 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

The nhs have been given a lot of money- what i dont get is why the money given isnt given to increase  WAGES for nursing staff to attract more into the field.

Agencies owned by Tory donors don't get a direct cut of wages paid to staff that work directly for the NHS.

The first step in fixing the NHS has to be stopping people pulling profit out of it.

 

[OutByEaster?]

[Demitri_C]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Agencies owned by Tory donors don't get a direct cut of wages paid to staff that work directly for the NHS.

The first step in fixing the NHS has to be stopping people pulling profit out of it.

 

100%agree mate

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

The nhs have been given a lot of money- what i dont get is why the money given isnt given to increase  WAGES for nursing staff to attract more into the field.

Staffing and as well as the lack of hospitals is fundamentally is one of the biggest issues we have here. Instead of just chucking the money with no clear plan or direction 

It hasn’t been given a lot of money relative to the scale of the job it is meant to perform and the increased demand on the system.

 

It’s all outlined in this thread - but summary is, we are wildly underspending relative to peer countries.

Of course the NHS gets “a lot” of money, it’s a health service for 60+ million people, in a country with an ageing population.

But the current level of underinvestment is a false economy, because it results in avoidable deaths, long term incapacitation from delayed treatment, substandard mental health care, etc. All this stuff damages the economy, makes the UK a less attractive place to live in (and therefore invest in). It’s irrational and innumerate.

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Agencies owned by Tory donors don't get a direct cut of wages paid to staff that work directly for the NHS.

The first step in fixing the NHS has to be stopping people pulling profit out of it.

 

Disagree. What‘s wrong with a private business selling a useful medical product or service to the NHS and turning a profit?

The agencies perform a useful service, but when you underpay and understaff normal employees, you make yourself dependent on agency workers. The problem is the lack of investment, not the existence of private providers.

Of course the Tories have probably, to some extent, deliberately stripped back state provided services because it creates more demand for their private chums. That’s clearly a problem. Lansley in particular seemed to be doing that.

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Disagree. What‘s wrong with a private business selling a useful medical product or service to the NHS and turning a profit?

The agencies perform a useful service, but when you underpay and understaff normal employees, you make yourself dependent on agency workers. The problem is the lack of investment, not the existence of private providers.

Of course the Tories have probably, to some extent, deliberately stripped back state provided services because it creates more demand for their private chums. That’s clearly a problem. Lansley in particular seemed to be doing that.

I think we're agreeing on most of this point, I'm suggesting that the solution is increased investment to reduce the reliance on private providers - you're agreeing that the problem is the lack of investment not the existence of the private providers.

I'd go further, I'd like to see a properly funded NHS manufacturing its own drugs and profiting through the sale of them and its expertise to the private sector, I think a properly funded NHS should be looking at not just removing as much private profit as it can, but profiting in the market itself as the largest healthcare company in the UK and one of the largest in Europe. Sort of in the same way that EDF brings money back into the French economy by selling energy abroad. That's a long way down the road, but a properly funded NHS that's run for the benefit of the UK rather than the shareholders of whoever has the ability to prosper.

I'd go with the question, what's wrong with a strong national asset like the NHS selling a useful medical product or service to private business for the benefit of the nation?

 

[KentVillan]

12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think we're agreeing on most of this point, I'm suggesting that the solution is increased investment to reduce the reliance on private providers - you're agreeing that the problem is the lack of investment not the existence of the private providers.

I'd go further, I'd like to see a properly funded NHS manufacturing its own drugs and profiting through the sale of them and its expertise to the private sector, I think a properly funded NHS should be looking at not just removing as much private profit as it can, but profiting in the market itself as the largest healthcare company in the UK and one of the largest in Europe. Sort of in the same way that EDF brings money back into the French economy by selling energy abroad. That's a long way down the road, but a properly funded NHS that's run for the benefit of the UK rather than the shareholders of whoever has the ability to prosper.

I'd go with the question, what's wrong with a strong national asset like the NHS selling a useful medical product or service to private business for the benefit of the nation?

 

Nothing wrong with it per se, but some of the stuff you're describing happens in a global market (e.g. drugs, etc) where it's probably more efficient (given patent laws, etc) to buy in from multinationals rather than reinvent the wheel.

And some of the stuff overlaps with non-medical / non-state services where the private sector is also probably more efficient (e.g. food, building maintenance, etc).

There's definitely a big role for the private sector in the NHS as a supplier, the question is where you draw the line. The Tories are so bought into the idea that the private sector is better and more efficient at *everything* that they have eroded a lot of the good stuff the NHS was handling itself.

It's not an either / or. I think Starmer is right to focus on "free at the point of use" but not regard the private sector as intrinsically bad.

But all of this stuff will be solved with better levels of investment in training, hiring, and retaining staff, and building and maintaining infrastructure. A lot of these other debates are tinkering around that, and ignoring the central problem.

[Davkaus]

Worth a listen

 

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Worth a listen

 

Meh, if he wants to get pissy about who people choose to stand alongside I'd have a lot more sympathy with his position had the nobber not lined up and metaphorically linked arms with Rees-Mogg and Farage in 2016. 

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Meh, if he wants to get pissy about who people choose to stand alongside I'd have a lot more sympathy with his position had the nobber not lined up and metaphorically linked arms with Rees-Mogg and Farage in 2016. 

Not thrilled by his position on that (though I think it's unfair to lump him in with those two clearings in the woods), but there's more to life and politics than Brexit, and I'll stand right behind him while he's at the forefront of workers trying to fight for a decent living. 

If Kier could be arsed to get involved with backing workers rather than taking time out to engage in the anti-trans culture war and backing down from his student loan pledges, Lynch wouldn't be getting much of a platform

[markavfc40]

You look at the amount of sectors/people striking now and surely the time is coming for Starmer and he is going to have to get off the fence and either back, as you'd expect a Labour leader to do, or oppose those striking. 

He is running scared of the right wing rags/media as they will obviously tar him, the way they tarred Miliband , with being in the pockets of the unions if he does show solidarity but surely he needs to be backing those fighting the good fight, especially given public opinion seems to be behind those striking

I can just about understand why he is doing it but I do find Starmers stance, on a number of issues, of not wanting to scare the horses and sitting on the fence, whilst allowing the Tories to continue to dig their own graves, very frustrating.

 

 

[Davkaus]

11 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

You look at the amount of sectors/people striking now and surely the time is coming for Starmer and he is going to have to get off the fence and either back, as you'd expect a Labour leader to do, or oppose those striking. 

He is running scared of the right wing rags/media as they will obviously tar him, the way they tarred Miliband , with being in the pockets of the unions if he does show solidarity but surely he needs to be backing those fighting the good fight, especially given public opinion seems to be behind those striking

I can just about understand why he is doing it but I do find Starmers stance, on a number of issues, of not wanting to scare the horses and sitting on the fence, whilst allowing the Tories to continue to dig their own graves, very frustrating.

 

 

I agree with you, I am running out of patience with him. What's the point of a Labour leader who's scared of showing a modicum of support to the Labour movement, but has plenty of time to give exclusives to the torygraph selling them his vision of NHS reform. 

Are we to believe that once he wins power by hiding his thoughts on unions and wooing the floating centre right, that he'll undemocratically change course and be on "our side"? 

If the best case scenario is he's willing to stay quiet to deceive the electorate and the worst case is he actually believes the things he's currently saying and doing are the most important thing, we have a problem.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Davkaus

[markavfc40]

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I agree with you, but I am running out of patience with him. What's the point of a Labour leader who's scared of showing a modicum of support to the Labour movement, but has plenty of time to give exclusives to the torygraph selling them his vision of NHS reform. 

Are we to believe that once he wins power by hiding his thoughts on unions and wooing the floating centre right, that he'll undemocratically change course and be on "our side"? 

If the best case scenario is he's willing to stay quiet to deceive the electorate and the worst case is he actually believes the things he's currently saying and doing are the most important thing, we have a problem.

I'd imagine the thinking is that the country aren't going to move to the left given the Tories are now that far to the right, and the electorate have, despite 5 years of austerity, all common sense and their standard of living telling them, still voted in increasingly right wing Tory governments three times since 2015.

My expectations under Starmer are little more than a move away from the right towards the centre, a genuine desire to improve our public services and I hope a Labour government will at least try to improve the lot of those with the least rather than what the Tories continually do which is give them a good kicking. I'd also expect some standards and accountability to return to our government. 

It is not asking a lot but it will be a damn sight better than the nightmare we are currently living. More medium term though I'd like to see Starmer replaced with someone with more conviction and someone prepared to stand up for the movement he represents rather than someone trying to appease those he should be opposing. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by markavfc40

[bickster]

Mick Lynch = Derek Hatton. Trotskyite populist.

And that’s one huge reason why you'll never see the Labour front bench share a platform with Mick Lynch. They’d be crucified in the press for it.

I actually did listen to the video. He didn’t actually say anything of any consequence.

Just Labour front bench bad because that's really all he cares about ultimately.

Also note that he was introduced by Eddie the hooligan. Eddie Dempsey really isn’t a very nice person

Lynch and Dempsey are both huge Brexit whoppers too. When you hear people say “this isn’t the Brexit I voted for” exclude these two. This is exactly the Brexit they campaigned for. They actively campaigned for Brexit, knowing that it would make working people poorer and they could organise strikes and from those strikes they'd be recruiting for their leftist cult. And once the workers get sucked in, then they'll be expected to pay subscriptions and contribute financially to the party, making them poorer still. Don't get suckered into this bollocks, they have about as much real interest in the workers as the Tory Party. For both them and the Tories, the workers are something to exploit.

Same as it ever was.

Nothing has changed

[markavfc40]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

Mick Lynch = Derek Hatton. Trotskyite populist.

And that’s one huge reason why you'll never see the Labour front bench share a platform with Mick Lynch. 

There is a happy medium here and whilst they perhaps shouldn't be sharing a platform with Mick Lynch they could come out and support striking workers who have been left with no other option but to strike. 

Given the real terms pay cuts over the last 13 years those on strike, in whatever sector, are being more than reasonable in their demands and I am struggling to see why, other than for fear of the right wing media attacks, the Labour front bench wouldn't be 100% behind them. 

This tip toeing around and showing little conviction or radical alternatives on pretty much every issue isn't inspiring anyone to vote Labour. The lead they have in the polls is due to how diabolical the Tories are. I don't see it happening but if the Tories do get their act together then what Labour are doing risks them not getting the landslide they should be 100% nailed on to achieve in 2024.

Edited January 17, 2023 by markavfc40

[bickster]

36 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

This tip toeing around and showing little conviction or radical alternatives on pretty much every issue isn't inspiring anyone to vote Labour.

The polls say the complete opposite of this

[Davkaus]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

The polls say the complete opposite of this

Do they, or do the polls say that the tories are so **** shambolic that Kier wins by default.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Davkaus

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The polls say that the tories are so **** shambolic that Kier wins by default.

So why would they risk upsetting that by appearing to endorse the new Corbyn (and Lynch is worse than Corbyn)

We've all seen what happens