Starmer reneges on nationalisation plans

SuperStu said:
@BoroFur will jump down your neck for saying that because of course it's disingenuous given that I immediately followed it with an explanation. And you haven't even done any emojis!

Here you go I'll explain again:

Starmer's party's record with BLM, GRT, the Trans community and even antisemitism is there for all to see.

When I say Starmer's party I mean the Labour party since 2020 (not 2019 😜).With BLM Starmer fell out with the organisers by minimising their campaign. With GRT community Starmer's had candidates out delivering leaflets talking about "dealing with" them. With the trans community he's let Rosie Duffield insult and belittle people throughout his leadership. With antisemitism, as always gets pointed out on here, Starmer's kicked Jewish members out of the Labour party in a higher proportion than any other demographic. He always immediately went against the EHRC reports recommendations and got personally involved in disciplinary procedures.
Click to expand...
I think I'll ask Rob to add a 🥱 reaction emoji to the board.

Jeremy's not coming back, deal with it.
 
Nano said:
That usually means: "We're abandoning any policies that might actually help people. You suckers will vote for us whatever we do so we might as well bribe Tory voters with Tory policies so we can win and change nothing".
Click to expand...
Well, they don't have to always licknthe polar opposite stance on things, things evolve, surely the single most important thing is that we get a new govt next election?
 
It beggars belief that some would rather the privitization of the NHS and see people die for lack of money, than vote for Kier Starmer. That is the choice in front of us all at the next election. It really is that simple.

I can't be bothered going round in circles with ideological arguments when people are starving and next winter will be freezing.

Since 2013/14 to 2019 spending on the private sector within the NHS increased by 23% to 26%. Thats a quater of our healthcare costs is being taken from your pocket and given to profiteers. Meanwhile the government claim only 7% of NHS spending goes outside the NHS.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Flawed data? Why NHS spending on the independent sector may actually be much more than 7%

The presentation of data on NHS expenditure is flawed, writes David Rowland, which prevents policymakers from having a clear understanding of where money within the system is going. He estimates th…
blogs.lse.ac.uk blogs.lse.ac.uk

Since 1987 the number of available hospital beds have halved. The only time they remained even remotely stable was for a 10 years during labous last stint in charge.


You all carry on your argument, bash Starmer and get another tory government. I hope to god your health insurance is up to date.

Some folks do really need to grow up and take a look at the country we live in and start to make moves to fix it, instead of whining after a Labour party that doesn't exist anymore.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-07-26 9.09.44 PM.png
    Screenshot 2022-07-26 9.09.44 PM.png
    106.5 KB · Views: 1
Laughing said:
It beggars belief that some would rather the privitization of the NHS and see people die for lack of money, than vote for Kier Starmer. That is the choice in front of us all at the next election. It really is that simple.

I can't be bothered going round in circles with ideological arguments when people are starving and next winter will be freezing.

Since 2013/14 to 2019 spending on the private sector within the NHS increased by 23% to 26%. Thats a quater of our healthcare costs is being taken from your pocket and given to profiteers. Meanwhile the government claim only 7% of NHS spending goes outside the NHS.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Flawed data? Why NHS spending on the independent sector may actually be much more than 7%

The presentation of data on NHS expenditure is flawed, writes David Rowland, which prevents policymakers from having a clear understanding of where money within the system is going. He estimates th…
blogs.lse.ac.uk blogs.lse.ac.uk

Since 1987 the number of available hospital beds have halved. The only time they remained even remotely stable was for a 10 years during labous last stint in charge.


You all carry on your argument, bash Starmer and get another tory government. I hope to god your health insurance is up to date.

Some folks do really need to grow up and take a look at the country we live in and start to make moves to fix it, instead of whining after a Labour party that doesn't exist anymore.
Click to expand...

And yet Streeting is up front that he doesn't plan to change any of that.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour would use private providers to cut NHS waiting lists, says Streeting

Wes Streeting tells the BBC he would reluctantly make use of private providers, as health secretary.
www.bbc.co.uk

At best, a Starmer led Labour government just delays the tories agenda. Is it really so awful of some of us to want an opposition with plans to actually reverse the agenda instead?
 
Laughing said:
It beggars belief that some would rather the privitization of the NHS and see people die for lack of money, than vote for Kier Starmer. That is the choice in front of us all at the next election. It really is that simple.

I can't be bothered going round in circles with ideological arguments when people are starving and next winter will be freezing.

Since 2013/14 to 2019 spending on the private sector within the NHS increased by 23% to 26%. Thats a quater of our healthcare costs is being taken from your pocket and given to profiteers. Meanwhile the government claim only 7% of NHS spending goes outside the NHS.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Flawed data? Why NHS spending on the independent sector may actually be much more than 7%

The presentation of data on NHS expenditure is flawed, writes David Rowland, which prevents policymakers from having a clear understanding of where money within the system is going. He estimates th…
blogs.lse.ac.uk blogs.lse.ac.uk

Since 1987 the number of available hospital beds have halved. The only time they remained even remotely stable was for a 10 years during labous last stint in charge.


You all carry on your argument, bash Starmer and get another tory government. I hope to god your health insurance is up to date.

Some folks do really need to grow up and take a look at the country we live in and start to make moves to fix it, instead of whining after a Labour party that doesn't exist anymore.
Click to expand...
Some of us aren't saying we won't vote for Starmer. We're just wishing he was better.

Re: beds in the NHS. I have worked at 2 trusts that got new hospitals. Both approved under Labour and both saw a big decrease in beds. One of the big reasons was more private rooms and more space per bed than was possible in the old cramped Victorian buildings.

I know that some of the thinking reasoning behind the reduction was flawed (fewer beds meant better care and could get people home sooner) but that was the line that central government/NHS at the time was spouting to get these huge PFI projects approved.

Staff numbers is the major reason under the Tories.
 
SuperStu said:
And yet Streeting is up front that he doesn't plan to change any of that.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour would use private providers to cut NHS waiting lists, says Streeting

Wes Streeting tells the BBC he would reluctantly make use of private providers, as health secretary.
www.bbc.co.uk

At best, a Starmer led Labour government just delays the tories agenda. Is it really so awful of some of us to want an opposition with plans to actually reverse the agenda instead?
Click to expand...
If you say so. I don't want an argument, just presenting some facts that we should be concerrned about, rather than nationalise v legislate.

Sort the neccessities out then bicker over who owns an organization.

I have read on here that starmer has no personality, he's a snake, he is the least popular choice. I don't care. I care whether families can afford to eat, whether they can get the critical cae they need and can afford the bills and school uniforms for their kids.
 
Nano said:
Some of us aren't saying we won't vote for Starmer. We're just wishing he was better.

Re: beds in the NHS. I have worked at 2 trusts that got new hospitals. Both approved under Labour and both saw a big decrease in beds. One of the big reasons was more private rooms and more space per bed than was possible in the old cramped Victorian buildings.

I know that some of the thinking reasoning behind the reduction was flawed (fewer beds meant better care and could get people home sooner) but that was the line that central government/NHS at the time was spouting to get these huge PFI projects approved.

Staff numbers is the major reason under the Tories.
Click to expand...
You may be saying that Nano, about starmer, its the wrong argument when people are starving.

On hospitals beds, they have fallen at a rate of knots under the tories, ans stayed basically stable under labour. The reason for the reduction you saw, I don't know and it may well have been a failed policy. That doesn't matter, it really doesn't in the world we find ourselves in today. Our problems today are not starmer and what pledges he has abandoned. Its starving kids with parents missing meal after meal. Not being able to keep the lights on, or the heating. That is the reality we face today.
 
Laughing said:
It beggars belief that some would rather the privitization of the NHS and see people die for lack of money, than vote for Kier Starmer. That is the choice in front of us all at the next election. It really is that simple.

I can't be bothered going round in circles with ideological arguments when people are starving and next winter will be freezing.

Since 2013/14 to 2019 spending on the private sector within the NHS increased by 23% to 26%. Thats a quater of our healthcare costs is being taken from your pocket and given to profiteers. Meanwhile the government claim only 7% of NHS spending goes outside the NHS.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Flawed data? Why NHS spending on the independent sector may actually be much more than 7%

The presentation of data on NHS expenditure is flawed, writes David Rowland, which prevents policymakers from having a clear understanding of where money within the system is going. He estimates th…
blogs.lse.ac.uk blogs.lse.ac.uk

Since 1987 the number of available hospital beds have halved. The only time they remained even remotely stable was for a 10 years during labous last stint in charge.


You all carry on your argument, bash Starmer and get another tory government. I hope to god your health insurance is up to date.

Some folks do really need to grow up and take a look at the country we live in and start to make moves to fix it, instead of whining after a Labour party that doesn't exist anymore.
Click to expand...
Sadly Starmer has already scrapped that pledge.

www.independent.co.uk

Keir Starmer scraps pledge to end NHS private sector outsourcing

Labour leader suggests breaking promise could help him win election
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
SuperStu said:
And yet Streeting is up front that he doesn't plan to change any of that.

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour would use private providers to cut NHS waiting lists, says Streeting

Wes Streeting tells the BBC he would reluctantly make use of private providers, as health secretary.
www.bbc.co.uk

At best, a Starmer led Labour government just delays the tories agenda. Is it really so awful of some of us to want an opposition with plans to actually reverse the agenda instead?
Click to expand...
No it’s not but Labour have to get voted in before they can do anything at all and that is the real point.

How do Labour both appeal to enough voters in the south of England (forget all this Tory diversionary Red Wall nonsense) and avoid being easy ‘woke, tax and spend’ fodder for the Tory media?

I haven’t read any Starmer critics on here with any answers to either of those questions.
 
Laughing said:
You may be saying that Nano, about starmer, its the wrong argument when people are starving.

On hospitals beds, they have fallen at a rate of knots under the tories, ans stayed basically stable under labour. The reason for the reduction you saw, I don't know and it may well have been a failed policy. That doesn't matter, it really doesn't in the world we find ourselves in today. Our problems today are not starmer and what pledges he has abandoned. Its starving kids with parents missing meal after meal. Not being able to keep the lights on, or the heating. That is the reality we face today.
Click to expand...
You are spot on, the rest is just trivial nitpicking by either undercover Tories stoking up division or old school Labour supporters looking inwards again.
 
HolgateCorner said:
I haven’t read any Starmer critics on here with any answers to either of those questions.
Click to expand...

Try scrolling up to post #181.

Starmer could try sticking to policies that are popular across the political spectrum, that he has a mandate for as Labour leader, and that leave a clear gap between Labour and the tories. To choose the opposite of all that isn't electoral pragmatism. It's him revealing his actual agenda.
 
Last edited:
SuperStu said:
Try scrolling up to post #181.

Starmer could try sticking to policies that are popular across the political spectrum, that he has a mandate for as Labour leader, and that leave a clear gap between Labour and the tories.
Click to expand...
Jeremy Corbyn (who I thought was an excellent Labour leader) had policies which were popular across the political spectrum and left a very clear gap between Labour and the Tories.

But he lost heavily in 2019 to a bullish Johnson and failed to dislodge a lacklustre Theresa May in 2017.

Have you given much thought as to why that might have happened?
 
HolgateCorner said:
No it’s not but Labour have to get voted in before they can do anything at all and that is the real point.

How do Labour both appeal to enough voters in the south of England (forget all this Tory diversionary Red Wall nonsense) and avoid being easy ‘woke, tax and spend’ fodder for the Tory media?

I haven’t read any Starmer critics on here with any answers to either of those questions.
Click to expand...
Propose policies that will actually help people and then spend your time marketing them. Explain why they are better for people. Don't get bogged down in t*t for tat soundbites. Concentrate on policy, not personality.

You don't have to win every seat in the South. Focus on working class people, there are way more of them than rich people. Instead of seeing them as the enemy, make their lives better.

From what we have seen so far Starmer seems to be missing policy and personality and hoping to get in just because the Tories are unelectable.


Again re: NHS beds. My point about the PFI contracts reducing beds was missing the fact that all the Labour approved new hospitals that significantly reduced bed numbers weren't built until the Tories are in power so a lot of those bed reductions in Tory years were due to Labour decisions. I'm not defending the Tories. God knows they are nothing but harmful for public services but Labour policy was also to reduce beds and we've heard nothing from Starmer about reversing those things.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Have you given much thought as to why that might have happened?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? Brexit. Internal sabotage. The character assassination.

Come on HC, you're not seriously suggesting that Labour would have won the 2019 election by campaigning on non-policies like keep the railways as they are, keep the NHS privatisation as it is, etc?
 
HolgateCorner said:
No it’s not but Labour have to get voted in before they can do anything at all and that is the real point.

How do Labour both appeal to enough voters in the south of England (forget all this Tory diversionary Red Wall nonsense) and avoid being easy ‘woke, tax and spend’ fodder for the Tory media?

I haven’t read any Starmer critics on here with any answers to either of those questions.
Click to expand...
We’ve told you several times.

Tell voters how you’re going to materially improve their lives, how you’re going to make the country a better place. It’s really not difficult.

On nationalisation of railways frame the argument like I suggested earlier, why are we as tax payers subsiding big business to run franchises that make those companies massive profits and pay out millions in shareholder dividends. Wouldn’t that money be better off going into the public purse to spend on reducing fares and public services?

How could any reasonable person argue against that? They couldn’t.

The alternative that the Starmer acolytes think is election gold is - offer people nothing than being less s**t than the Tories, this will get all the soft Tories to vote for him and when he gets in he’ll yell “surprise” and start doing all these amazing he couldn’t tell us he was going to do because people wouldn’t vote for him if he told us upfront.

These people are absolute children and have no business discussing politics.
 
SuperStu said:
Isn't it obvious? Brexit. Internal sabotage. The character assassination.

Come on HC, you're not seriously suggesting that Labour would have won the 2019 election by campaigning on non-policies like keep the railways as they are, keep the NHS privatisation as it is, etc?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I’m struggling to understand why the Tories have managed to foster so much appeal over the last 12 years.

Listening to Johnson, Truss and Sunak they are all over the place and completely divided on policy, they have just ‘internal sabotaged’ and character assassinated their own PM and yet it would surprise nobody if they did enough promises on immigration, pensions and a few token tax cuts here and there to get themselves over the line again.

I‘m not saying Starmer has shown the answers yet but I’m definitely saying I’ve read nothing on here which inspires me either, you have to move with the times.
 
InglebyUTB said:
We’ve told you several times.

Tell voters how you’re going to materially improve their lives, how you’re going to make the country a better place. It’s really not difficult.

On nationalisation of railways frame the argument like I suggested earlier, why are we as tax payers subsiding big business to run franchises that make those companies massive profits and pay out millions in shareholder dividends. Wouldn’t that money be better off going into the public purse to spend on reducing fares and public services?

How could any reasonable person argue against that? They couldn’t.

The alternative that the Starmer acolytes think is election gold is - offer people nothing than being less s**t than the Tories, this will get all the soft Tories to vote for him and when he gets in he’ll yell “surprise” and start doing all these amazing he couldn’t tell us he was going to do because people wouldn’t vote for him if he told us upfront.

These people are absolute children and have no business discussing politics.
Click to expand...
The political landscape has changed. In this country I've never seen anything like the cult of Johnson. Not even in Thatcher's days. This is not the 1970s when policies were in place two years before an election. Starmer is going nowhere but we've got to remove the Tories any which way. I don't understand why folk don't get that.
 
InglebyUTB said:
We’ve told you several times.

Tell voters how you’re going to materially improve their lives, how you’re going to make the country a better place. It’s really not difficult.

On nationalisation of railways frame the argument like I suggested earlier, why are we as tax payers subsiding big business to run franchises that make those companies massive profits and pay out millions in shareholder dividends. Wouldn’t that money be better off going into the public purse to spend on reducing fares and public services?

How could any reasonable person argue against that? They couldn’t.

The alternative that the Starmer acolytes think is election gold is - offer people nothing than being less s**t than the Tories, this will get all the soft Tories to vote for him and when he gets in he’ll yell “surprise” and start doing all these amazing he couldn’t tell us he was going to do because people wouldn’t vote for him if he told us upfront.

These people are absolute children and have no business discussing politics.
Click to expand...
InglebyUTB said:
We’ve told you several times.

Tell voters how you’re going to materially improve their lives, how you’re going to make the country a better place. It’s really not difficult.

On nationalisation of railways frame the argument like I suggested earlier, why are we as tax payers subsiding big business to run franchises that make those companies massive profits and pay out millions in shareholder dividends. Wouldn’t that money be better off going into the public purse to spend on reducing fares and public services?

How could any reasonable person argue against that? They couldn’t.

The alternative that the Starmer acolytes think is election gold is - offer people nothing than being less s**t than the Tories, this will get all the soft Tories to vote for him and when he gets in he’ll yell “surprise” and start doing all these amazing he couldn’t tell us he was going to do because people wouldn’t vote for him if he told us upfront.

These people are absolute children and have no business discussing politics.
Click to expand...
How rude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top