advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

It used to be assumed that a vote for Labour was a vote for the NHS.

Now it is a vote for further privatisation of the NHS.

A vote for Labour is a vote for what the Tories started decades ago and haven't quite finished yet. They’re using the same tired; there is no alternative, there is no money, *they* crashed the economy, type of noisy excuses to do so
 
ks.234 said:
It used to be assumed that a vote for Labour was a vote for the NHS.

Now it is a vote for further privatisation of the NHS.

A vote for Labour is a vote for what the Tories started decades ago and haven't quite finished yet. They’re using the same tired; there is no alternative, there is no money, *they* crashed the economy, type of noisy excuses to do so
Click to expand...
I've said it a few times now but where's the education policy too - that used to rank even more strongly than nhs. Schools and teachers are on their knees...
 
gavreid said:
I've said it a few times now but where's the education policy too - that used to rank even more strongly than nhs. Schools and teachers are on their knees...
Click to expand...
If they can breach the NHS, all the other public services will be washed down stream as well. And remember that the water in the stream will have lumps because we privatised it, so it’s not the right direction to going in.

Labour will bring in privatisation of the NHS than the Tories could only dream of.

A vote for Labour is a vote for increasing privatisation.
 
ks.234 said:
If they can breach the NHS, all the other public services will be washed down stream as well. And remember that the water in the stream will have lumps because we privatised it, so it’s not the right direction to going in.

Labour will bring in privatisation of the NHS than the Tories could only dream of.

A vote for Labour is a vote for increasing privatisation.
Click to expand...
Labour began the nhs cuts in 2009 and the rest is history

www.bmj.com

The 2009 budget and the NHS

Doctors need to be fully engaged in saving money and improving outcomes Reassurances by ministers about the implications of the 2009 budget for NHS spending should not mask the reality that funding will become much tighter. The first effects will be felt in 2010-1, when the NHS will need to...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com
 
gavreid said:
Labour began the nhs cuts in 2009 and the rest is history

www.bmj.com

The 2009 budget and the NHS

Doctors need to be fully engaged in saving money and improving outcomes Reassurances by ministers about the implications of the 2009 budget for NHS spending should not mask the reality that funding will become much tighter. The first effects will be felt in 2010-1, when the NHS will need to...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com
Click to expand...
Labour went over to the Dark Side in Callaghan’s Blackpool Speech in 1976.


It’s been downhill ever since.
 
gavreid said:
By giving an inch to the Tories they come back and take a mile and then keep going...
Click to expand...
Yes, except I don't think there is any given and take, they both believe in privatisation as an end in itself. All the blather about fiscal rules is no more than attempt to cover their arses with bits of paper. They are not being forced to privatise by bits of paper they’ve just written on.

“Sorry Darling, can’t go the see your mother this weekend”​
​
Why not?”.​
​
“Fiscal rules Darling”.​
​
“What fiscal f*ckin’ rules you babbling fool?”.​
​
“Hang on Darling, haven’t quite finished them yet”​

Labour want to protect the NHS as much as I want to spend an afternoon with my mother-in-law talking about something she’s read in the Mail.
 

Top Labour figures met financial services firms after £150k donation​

OpenDemocracy investigation names attenders, including Keir Starmer, at Edinburgh meeting to discuss party’s banking policies

“According to a now-deleted LinkedIn post by an employee of one of the companies at the meeting, Starmer and his ministerial team offered those in attendance an “exclusive dive” into the launch of its financial services policy.”

www.theguardian.com

Top Labour figures met financial services firms after £150k donation

OpenDemocracy investigation names attenders, including Keir Starmer, at Edinburgh meeting to discuss party’s banking policies
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

A broad majority of British voters *demands* Labour accept money from financial services companies.
 
gavreid said:
Even within their own parameters there is potentially much more money available than they pretend.
Click to expand...
Labour have taken down their IronClad Rules and are currently rewritting them

For a window into who they are being written for, see above
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
I did burst out laughing at that! You seem to have forgotten that WW2 happened and the state of the UK when it ended... and the USA then wanting payment for 'Lend Lease', etc, on top of all the bomb damage, etc.

The reality is that Atlee and TBH SuperMac did *far* more to move in the right directions that any recent PM we've had, despight the UK being in effect bankrupt. From Thatcher onwards we have the same failing dogma from both of the main parties, with the LDs sucking up to either one if they could sniff some power.

I reccomend people read the book "The Five Giants" which documents what was done in context. I suspect many people would be surprised by the period WW2 and up to the 1960s.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to ignore my direct experience of working in the UK government for 40 years to assist your argument.
However, it is worth pointing out that Atlee inherited an impoverished but entirely militarised state, with well over a million Civil Servants. People who were acknowledged as an essential component of the state's success
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Well, the situation won't change until people show what they want and vote for it. And for the Green vote to rise, people have to vote for them. As it is, a vote for the LP is effectively wasted because you get the same as before. Better to 'waste' a vote on showing what you want rather than wasting it on something that you don't. Because if the Green vote goes up, that helps other people to feel it may be worth voting for them.

if you don't, there is no hope. Its that simple. And given Climate Change that's a serious result which our children will never forgive us for enabling because we were too feeble to stand and and vote for changes we knew were urgently needed.
Click to expand...

Climate change is indeed the biggest issue of the day and has been for some time, yet we still haven't seen a breakthrough on any level in Green Party fortunes. This suggests they are not connecting with voters (and draws attention to their leadership). If voters want green action today, they will get more of it under an electable Labour government than by voting for the Green Party (which in turn might even help the Tories).

I'm not in the no hope camp, though I agree that the direction of travel on the global level is concerning.
 
Kirk said:
Climate change is indeed the biggest issue of the day and has been for some time, yet we still haven't seen a breakthrough on any level in Green Party fortunes. This suggests they are not connecting with voters (and draws attention to their leadership). If voters want green action today, they will get more of it under an electable Labour government than by voting for the Green Party (which in turn might even help the Tories).

I'm not in the no hope camp, though I agree that the direction of travel on the global level is concerning.
Click to expand...
Labour’s Green plans involve privatisation and growth. Green planning and growth in GDP are mutually exclusive

Want Green, vote Green.

Want more privatisation, Vote Labour
 
I think we have little choice but to play a longer game. It is, after all, the way the far right grasped control. So first, arrest the headlong dash to the right. If that means electing a party now which merely shuffles to the right, that is step 1. Step 2 would be to arrest that party’s rightward shuffle. Step 3 would be to induce a leftward shuffle. Only then are we likely to have a hope of meaningful change, including green priorities. I reckon that‘s likely to take >10 years. I don’t think we’ve got 10 years, but what choice do we have? Violent revolution, or catastrophic collapse seem like the other choices we face.
 
raysablade said:
I'm happy to ignore my direct experience of working in the UK government for 40 years to assist your argument.
However, it is worth pointing out that Atlee inherited an impoverished but entirely militarised state, with well over a million Civil Servants. People who were acknowledged as an essential component of the state's success
Click to expand...

Indeed. And then those people had a different mindset and approach to those during the period from Thatcher onwards. Hence the creation of 'New Towns' for example, not just building houses, but aimed to be of decent quality, and with a local context in terms of employment, public transport, or whatever. Joined-up thinking rather than "Market Rulz KO" adopted thoughout the main parties and many more recent public servants.

How many people now realise that the Legal system was intended to be another arm of the "Welfare State"? i.e. To be available for those who could not pay big bucks and ensure their rights. Since then whittled away to the present Omnishambles!

cf Mazzucato as well as "Five Giants".
 
Kirk said:
Climate change is indeed the biggest issue of the day and has been for some time, yet we still haven't seen a breakthrough on any level in Green Party fortunes. This suggests they are not connecting with voters (and draws attention to their leadership). If voters want green action today, they will get more of it under an electable Labour government than by voting for the Green Party (which in turn might even help the Tories).
Click to expand...

Alas, a bit more isn't enough. Reality doesn't care what people think, only about what they do. And the problem is that Labour is akin to the Tories - unwilling to face up to what it needed *urgently*. Whatever people may wish to believe, behaviour shows quite clearly that Labour follow the same dogmas as the Tories - but with a nice smile - and we are already reaching the point where changes will be too late or require much more *difficult* situations along the way. i.e. cost is all more in terms of the damage that will be done by the climate to our ability to live, eat, etc.

No matter how you try to look at it the reality has been clear for many years. To get the changes we need people have to vote for them. But waiting until someone else "goes first" means no-one goes anywhere... except to disaster for all those who can't take a rocket to Mars!
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think we have little choice but to play a longer game. It is, after all, the way the far right grasped control. So first, arrest the headlong dash to the right. If that means electing a party now which merely shuffles to the right, that is step 1. Step 2 would be to arrest that party’s rightward shuffle. Step 3 would be to induce a leftward shuffle. Only then are we likely to have a hope of meaningful change, including green priorities. I reckon that‘s likely to take >10 years. I don’t think we’ve got 10 years, but what choice do we have? Violent revolution, or catastrophic collapse seem like the other choices we face.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is simple. The sooner more people vote green, the better. One reason being that as more people do that helps others to feel it is worth joining them in voting that way. Along the line that may push the old parties to shift greenwards as well.

Basically, question of reducing the damage we face as much as we can, as soon as we can. Alas, I fear this year we are already at a main tipping point. In the end it will be too obvious for people to go on pretending about it.
 
Voting green (or for anyone else) won't make a blind bit of difference, it's just a similar dead end. When we all realise that much maybe strides can be made...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top