YouGov Poll - 33 Point lead!

I'm not so sure. When the election is near the tory press will be spewing lies, accusing Starmer of every crime under the sun and generally trying to frighten unthinking idiots into believing the tory scam all over again, even though the country will have all but collapsed by then.

Of course they will, but Labour have about 1000 replies due to all the problems the Tories caused. The papers still need to sell papers (or need clicks), or they could find their user base diminished and maybe even leading to a more balanced press (or less unbalanced). If the public are massively against the Tories, then you could see the press maybe soften up, or at least some of them. Will be interesting to see at least.

Plus, Labour will also have a manifesto, which they can point to, which will be current for the times, and more appealing to the centre. The Tories will have a big problem with their manifesto, either going against their current crop of MP's or against the far-right voters who they've retained. Then if they do try and soften up to take the centre, they will get hammered by reform.

They're screwed I think, and they know it, so will probably end up playing the long game, to get back in for 2030, which will probably be a much closer fight. Labour will probably have had some issues during 25-30, but should also have recovered quite a few things quite well.

Labour need to target those older voters to pull the rug under the Tories feet, but it might be hard to do when it's the younger folk who have been taking the hit for so long, and will continue to do so for the next 5-10 years I expect.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced it's the centre they're trying to appeal to...

View attachment 50965

I'm not sure what you mean? Who do you think they're appealing too? I think they're going to just try and fix it (NHS), and anyone should be happy with that, especially those on "normal" incomes, which probably covers most of the left and the centre.

I've looked up the article https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nhs-run-doctors-patients-decade-fix-wes-streeting-2083608 and don't seem to have much problem with it?

I'll reply based on the article (just as I've read it), as I'm not sure what your point was?

The NHS does need reform, everything does, to keep up with the times, but reform doesn't mean selling it off. The article mentions Labour pushing for nationalising GP surgeries, and offering patient choice over face-to-face, phone or video call appointments and also using Pharmacies to provide Primary healthcare (this seems like a great idea).

They're right it's going to take a decade to fix (possibly even longer), and they need more people which the article mentions they're aiming to do. The NHS does need more funding, but that funding seems to need to be directed at more people, rather than more equipment etc. If they make better use of what they have (they need more managers, for key areas), shorten up appointments using calls etc, and have pharmacies helping out then this could all really help.

I've probably had maybe 5-10 GP appointments in the last 5 years, and thinking back, I would have been more than happy to have all of those over video chat, and two pretty much were during covid. Some of the others could have easily been sorted by Pharmacies, if they had the power. We could even maybe outsource some of the video/ call appointments abroad if this was adequately controlled, or doctors could do that as overtime as a spare hour at home etc. Not that I'm saying they have loads of spare time, but sometimes it's easier to fit in a few hours here and there, at home, rather than a full shift etc. I'm not saying others wouldn't want or need face to face appointments, but they would have more of them if most of us didn't need them, and could get help elsewhere etc.

I don't see how it's going to be viable to increase funding immediately to catch up the Tory mess of 13 years, and also recruit, and also catch up existing NHS pay, and get waiting lists down, all at the same time, and extremely quickly. Of course, everyone with a heart would want that, but we need to be realistic. Just throwing funding at it won't work, if it's thrown in the wrong areas (which they Tories would probably fund private care to pretend to catch up), it's critical this funding goes to the right places. One of the key issues the NHS has is that beds are full of people who would be out of beds if they had adequate social care to put them into. It might be a case of using some of the budget to fund that, which would help the NHS out indirectly, and might be better value.

Of course, any funding, has to meet an overall budget (without screwing over other areas, which are also screwed), and the money is not free, and we're already in massive debt. Yes, they could tax more, but we all know what would happen then, the press would go wild and there would be a mass exodus back to the Tories and things would get worse again. Power retention long term, is the NHS's best chance, even if that means the NHS don't get everything they want short term. No point trying to treat a long term illness well for one term, if you're going to make it much worse after for three more terms etc.
 
I'm not sure what you mean? Who do you think they're appealing too? I think they're going to just try and fix it (NHS), and anyone should be happy with that, especially those on "normal" incomes, which probably covers most of the left and the centre.
It's a dog-whistle to the right.

If you don't follow politics closely and you're something of a centrist then you might not see why this is a problem, and I don't want to be accused of being condescending by attempting to explain the differences between Tory, Liberal and Labour ideology from a historical perspective.

Have a look on Twitter to the reaction from doctors and GPs to this article. The fact that Streeting has tried to defend himself with some highly convoluted semantic arguments should be enough to convince you that there's a problem. Trying to fix the NHS by declaring war on doctors comes straight from the Tory playbook. It is self-defeating for Labour and is a direct challenge, again, to the left.

Nationalising GP surgeries has been a Tory ploy to destroy the unique structure of the NHS for years. It's about removing control from specialists and forcing quotas (and worse) which will lead to a deterioration in health-care for the most vulnerable.

The NHS requires a massive increase in funding. This requires an honest look at how funding works. This requires an adult converation about what taxation is and what it is used for.

Labour should be leading on this but they've decided it's easier to just try and appeal to a slightly more right-wing demographic than explain why things don't work the way we're continually told they do by right-wing mass media owners.

As an aside, I'll give you an echo from the past - possibly mid to late 80s.

Education is a mess because the teachers are running it for themselves and not for the pupils.

What we need is more choice for parents.

To do that we need to streamline the exam process so that we can create league tables.

Is anyone going to argue that education is better now that it was back when we had O-levels?

It was very much a part of the Tory ideology that required (a) removing the soft social power of the teaching profession (lefties) and (b) the steady supply of bodies for the workplace with a limited capacity for critical thought.

They want a similar outcome with the NHS. Paint the doctors as the people preventing change for the better, when in fact they're the ones warning of the catastrophe that's unfolding. Slowly remove their power to prevent wholesale and irreparable damage. Then sell of the profitable parts of the NHS to the highest bidder and leave the public to fend for themselves (something that is already happening).

The fact a Labour Health Secretary has similar plans should be a massive red-flag for anyone that thinks Labour haven't been infiltrated by a bunch of economically right-wing Liberals (at best).
 
It's a dog-whistle to the right.

If you don't follow politics closely and you're something of a centrist then you might not see why this is a problem, and I don't want to be accused of being condescending by attempting to explain the differences between Tory, Liberal and Labour ideology from a historical perspective.

Have a look on Twitter to the reaction from doctors and GPs to this article. The fact that Streeting has tried to defend himself with some highly convoluted semantic arguments should be enough to convince you that there's a problem. Trying to fix the NHS by declaring war on doctors comes straight from the Tory playbook. It is self-defeating for Labour and is a direct challenge, again, to the left.

Nationalising GP surgeries has been a Tory ploy to destroy the unique structure of the NHS for years. It's about removing control from specialists and forcing quotas (and worse) which will lead to a deterioration in health-care for the most vulnerable.

The NHS requires a massive increase in funding. This requires an honest look at how funding works. This requires an adult converation about what taxation is and what it is used for.

Labour should be leading on this but they've decided it's easier to just try and appeal to a slightly more right-wing demographic than explain why things don't work the way we're continually told they do by right-wing mass media owners.

As an aside, I'll give you an echo from the past - possibly mid to late 80s.

Education is a mess because the teachers are running it for themselves and not for the pupils.

What we need is more choice for parents.

To do that we need to streamline the exam process so that we can create league tables.

Is anyone going to argue that education is better now that it was back when we had O-levels?

It was very much a part of the Tory ideology that required (a) removing the soft social power of the teaching profession (lefties) and (b) the steady supply of bodies for the workplace with a limited capacity for critical thought.

They want a similar outcome with the NHS. Paint the doctors as the people preventing change for the better, when in fact they're the ones warning of the catastrophe that's unfolding. Slowly remove their power to prevent wholesale and irreparable damage. Then sell of the profitable parts of the NHS to the highest bidder and leave the public to fend for themselves (something that is already happening).

The fact a Labour Health Secretary has similar plans should be a massive red-flag for anyone that thinks Labour haven't been infiltrated by a bunch of economically right-wing Liberals (at best).
Labour can’t do anything unless they are in power though can they?

After years of the right wing media saying Labour are the enemy of working people and will take what little money they have to waste on something it’s an uphill struggle to get back into Downing Street, far more difficult than I expected when Cameron went into coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010 but the anti Left propaganda machine has done its job for them.
 
Labour can’t do anything unless they are in power though can they?
Of course they can.

They can hold the government to account and explain why, how and where the public are being lied to.

They can support the unions and striking workers when it's clear that the vast majority of the public are in sympathy with both.

They can lay out plans for e.g. the NHS without resorting to right-wing tropes that are clearly an attempt to appeal to right-of-centre voters rather than engage truthfully with the electorate.

Power for the sake of power is pointless (and dangerous in the wrong hands c.f. Johnson's 80 seat majority).

If the country wants zero immigration, zero tax, and a reintroduction of capital punishment then Labour need to explain why those things aren't sensible rather than jumping on the band-wagon to increase their vote-count.
 
Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but when you get a government in contempt of standards, norms, and legality, then it's near impossible to hold them to account in any meaningful way

Exactly this. The Tories have fully exploited the "unwritten" rules of Government standards, they cannot be held to account in any meaningful way.

Labour have pushed every scandal to its limits, all we get is a new unelected PM as Tory MP's hang on to their gravy train as long as possible.

The nation is suffering from scandal fatigue, nothing seems enough to bring this shower of a government down and it certainly won't be Labour questioning their record or announcing their own policies early.

Labour simply have to wait until the next election, at which point they can then be fairly judged.
 
Of course they can.

They can hold the government to account and explain why, how and where the public are being lied to.

They can support the unions and striking workers when it's clear that the vast majority of the public are in sympathy with both.

They can lay out plans for e.g. the NHS without resorting to right-wing tropes that are clearly an attempt to appeal to right-of-centre voters rather than engage truthfully with the electorate.

Power for the sake of power is pointless (and dangerous in the wrong hands c.f. Johnson's 80 seat majority).

If the country wants zero immigration, zero tax, and a reintroduction of capital punishment then Labour need to explain why those things aren't sensible rather than jumping on the band-wagon to increase their vote-count.
I agree that they can (and do) do a lot out of power but I think they can do much more in power.

I think it’s important to get Labour in to stop the Tories getting to a tipping point on a lot of right wing ideology which once established (like insurance based health system) will be very hard to dismantle.

I also agree about Labour winning the intellectual arguments and avoiding pointless power but I also think just having a Labour Government is as much about the UK’s political direction of travel, culture and attitude in society as anything so in my view we very much need one no matter how imperfect it might be.
 
It's a dog-whistle to the right.

If you don't follow politics closely and you're something of a centrist then you might not see why this is a problem, and I don't want to be accused of being condescending by attempting to explain the differences between Tory, Liberal and Labour ideology from a historical perspective.

Have a look on Twitter to the reaction from doctors and GPs to this article. The fact that Streeting has tried to defend himself with some highly convoluted semantic arguments should be enough to convince you that there's a problem. Trying to fix the NHS by declaring war on doctors comes straight from the Tory playbook. It is self-defeating for Labour and is a direct challenge, again, to the left.

Nationalising GP surgeries has been a Tory ploy to destroy the unique structure of the NHS for years. It's about removing control from specialists and forcing quotas (and worse) which will lead to a deterioration in health-care for the most vulnerable.

The NHS requires a massive increase in funding. This requires an honest look at how funding works. This requires an adult converation about what taxation is and what it is used for.

Labour should be leading on this but they've decided it's easier to just try and appeal to a slightly more right-wing demographic than explain why things don't work the way we're continually told they do by right-wing mass media owners.

As an aside, I'll give you an echo from the past - possibly mid to late 80s.

Education is a mess because the teachers are running it for themselves and not for the pupils.

What we need is more choice for parents.

To do that we need to streamline the exam process so that we can create league tables.

Is anyone going to argue that education is better now that it was back when we had O-levels?

It was very much a part of the Tory ideology that required (a) removing the soft social power of the teaching profession (lefties) and (b) the steady supply of bodies for the workplace with a limited capacity for critical thought.

They want a similar outcome with the NHS. Paint the doctors as the people preventing change for the better, when in fact they're the ones warning of the catastrophe that's unfolding. Slowly remove their power to prevent wholesale and irreparable damage. Then sell of the profitable parts of the NHS to the highest bidder and leave the public to fend for themselves (something that is already happening).

The fact a Labour Health Secretary has similar plans should be a massive red-flag for anyone that thinks Labour haven't been infiltrated by a bunch of economically right-wing Liberals (at best).
I follow it a lot more closely than most voters also a Labour member too. My circles or friends are largely centrists, centre left/ left and I work in an industry which is right, and previous industry was even further right. I'm also at a similar age of a traditional central voter, so I'd say I'm fairly well covered and what it will take to win, and who needs winning over.

Ideology (or being idealistic at least) doesn't work, Labour have never been close to winning when they've gone mostly or even fully towards what the party is supposedly grounded at. That's why the party is grounded there in name only, and it needs to stay that way if it actually wants to win. The only way you would ever get a Labour (100% as it's supposed to be on paper) in any sort of power, would be with PR. But, and it's a big but, that would largely mean Labour reforming to be a centrist party, or a centreist party coming to the fold. In either case Labour would have to be or buddy up with a centrist party (which would likely get larger and larger every year), so Labour losing more and more power to them (tories also). This is why no large party ever wants PR, especially when they have power, but long term it's probably better for all of those in the centre/ centre left or left as it takes away any sort of far-right influence.

The last time Labour won power back from the tories was 1997, under Blair (who I imagine you're not a fan of). He was the only one who grasped that you need to win first (and who was able to do it) before any changes can be made, and then once you're in power you can start to reverse Tory damage and start to do some good things. It takes a very long time though, and needs to be realistic. The country sits slightly right, and the press is further right, there is no "win" without some voters who are right of centre, and the votes in the centre are pretty much worth two of those who would never vote for the opposite party to blue/ red.

I get the doctors are miffed, but they more than anyone should realise changes can make things better, or less worse. Medicine is about sticking with what works, not making things worse and using advancements to make things better. But, it depends who is doing the changes, and what their intentions are. Changing from Tories to Labour would be a massive change to a positive, but you need to win first, and you can't win long-term by not having policies which will realistically control the centre.

It's not declaring war on Doctors, the Doctors are already in a war, they've been in a war for 13 years, and there are another 2 more years of that, then it's rebuilding for hopefully the next 10-15. The idea is to help doctors, in a realistic way, but by also being able to win, for a few terms. Yes, there may be ways to do that, which are further left, but realistically, doing that would be a much tighter vote, and likely a certain loss second term, then the doctors are back in a war again, likely for another 10-15 years, before anything was rebuilt.

The NHS structure is broken, separating the GP's out, but being nationalised and well controlled might help, and putting more funding into social care (which is causing an increase of bed blocking) would have a better bang for buck than throwing money at a broken NHS , without making changes. Like I say, it depends where the money is going to, everyone thinks we need more nurses, which we do, but the NHS is absolutely crying out for more management, who can handle resources better. The ratio of managers to middle managers and workers is completely screwed up, it's one of the most under-managed sectors.

I suppose an online triage (by an actual person) could direct 90% of what would have been in-person GP appointments to the right areas, which likely won't need face-to-face appointments. People need treatment, not an appointment, and not 1000 people calling up at 8am for 50 available slots, and no alternative doesn't work. Pharmacies are skilled enough to help with this direction, they just need to power (and protection) to be able to do it.

The NHS does need more funding, of course it does, but the funding needs to go in the correct areas. But the books also need to balance, and at a time when pretty much every sector is screwed. We're currently in a recession which is going to last a long time, or at least no return to real growth for a while. It's unrealistic to think that a pandemic, post-pandemic, war, energy war, super inflation, 15 years of Tory damage will not cause everyone problems, everyone is going to have to accept that some of these problems are going to take a long long time to fix, and how we have to fix them (and retain power to do it), might not be how they want.

I wouldn't bother giving the Tories ideas, it's pointless, especially at this stage, it's too early. But wait to see how the manifesto's are different.

Education is a mess as it also lacks funding, and the funding spent in the correct areas. i.e examples like spending money propping up private schools when they should be prioritising the schools at the bottom of the league tables, or spending money on where their problems come from. One major issue with this though, is some schools in bad areas are always going to have a massive problem, as the schools get wrecked by unruly children and nightmare parents, it's their parents who need educating, that's how the kids start on the wrong road and become a nightmare for the teachers, which then drags down the other kids. There's no incentive for the good/ progressing teachers to stay at these schools, so why would they? They get out as fast as they can, so they don't have to deal with nightmare kids (of nightmare parents), and work in rough areas. Nearly every teacher I know, was at a poor school/ in a rough area as an NQT, and now, 20 years later they're all in much better schools, in much better areas. They all moved over when were lower on the ladder, and most have progressed up the ladder at the better schools. One actually went back to their first school which employed them, 15 years later, and was back out of there a year later, couldn't handle the unruly kids and they had zero power to make any changes.

I'm not sure if education from schools is better than it was, but I think knowledge of children at 16 is better, but that's mainly through tech advancement, and easy access to online resources, but there needs to be a drive to use it or take more advantage of this. Unruly parents are never going to make use of this, they use school like daycare, and let the kids play computer games the rest of the time, or send the kids out on the street, uncontrolled, to be influenced by others who might be even worse. I did GCSE's, at a poor secondary school and the teaching was fine, the biggest problem the school had was the attitude of half of the kids, but again that comes from parents, not teachers, not blaming the kids, they know no different.

I feel sorry for the new teachers they seem to be used and abused until they get enough experience where they then start to have a choice of where to go, and that place being somewhere they would want to be.

Everyone knows the NHS is in a catastrophe, there are many reasons, 15 years of the Tories (by the time of the next GE), pandemic, post-pandemic, crap economy (which practically guarantees worse funding), inflation etc. There's no going back to the state it was in 2010 (not within decade), when it was running pretty well it seems. You can't go from worst ever to best ever immediately, it's not going to happen. It's a long-term project which will need to see some changes that some won't see as ideal. The changes will be far better than continual decline of Tory rule though, I'll guarantee that.

Like I keep saying, labour need to win, and win big (less chance of a loss second term), and then look at retaining power for 2-3 terms, that will ultimately give the best outcomes for the NHS, Teachers, Social care etc. Losing with perfect intentions is completely pointless and counterproductive, as in the real world this ultimately means handing the asylum keys back to the lunatics. The public are currently weighted to vote for these lunatics unfortunately, and the press control these lunatics' minds, it's far from ideal, so don't expect anything to be ideal, it never will be.
 
Maybe I'm a naive optimist but I don't think the country does sit slightly right. Broadly speaking it's probably very much much in the centre but if anything it's slightly left.

Unfortunately we end up with centre right or even, as is currently the case, right wing governments because the left of centre vote is split, right wing voters (particularly pensioners) are far more likely to vote and the media is heavily right wing and does con a lot of people who, all things being equal are probably left of centre, into voting against their natural inclination.

I don't disagree that labour probably need to claim the centre ground to win well. But that's less to do with the political leanings of voters and more to do with how politics works in this country. It's rigged against the left.
 
Maybe I'm a naive optimist but I don't think the country does sit slightly right. Broadly speaking it's probably very much much in the centre but if anything it's slightly left.

Unfortunately we end up with centre right or even, as is currently the case, right wing governments because the left of centre vote is split, right wing voters (particularly pensioners) are far more likely to vote and the media is heavily right wing and does con a lot of people who, all things being equal are probably left of centre, into voting against their natural inclination.

I don't disagree that labour probably need to claim the centre ground to win well. But that's less to do with the political leanings of voters and more to do with how politics works in this country. It's rigged against the left.
Yeah, you're 100% correct with that, I mean more by who votes, if the young and old switched voting frequency there would be a massive difference. I'm not sure what more could be done to get the young to vote. They're largely just not bothered (just like I wasn't) and I suppose politics is something that you grow into over time, but unfortunately largely when people have accrued some wealth, which largely influences voting intention.

Another problem is older folk are more heavily influenced by traditional newspapers and that style of media, their days are numbered though.

It will change over time, but the boomers are currently running the show. Obviously, over time this will fade, but with low birth rates mean things are not going to go "left" at any sort of speed.

The old and the boomers need/ will need the NHS, and hopefully they actually want their families to have a good life, so maybe we might see a voting intention change, for the really old, don't think much can be done about those just younger/ less old though. A lot of those will be fairly set in their ways by now.
 
It's not just older people though. There is a tendency for people to digest news in very short order.

How many people would actually read Andy's post above? That's not a criticism as I generally agree with it but the digital age means people don't like to wait for anything.


Most people under 30 wouldn't even bother with this thread; they'd go to the latest poll to see what the 'score' is.
 
Yeah, you're 100% correct with that, I mean more by who votes, if the young and old switched voting frequency there would be a massive difference. I'm not sure what more could be done to get the young to vote. They're largely just not bothered (just like I wasn't) and I suppose politics is something that you grow into over time, but unfortunately largely when people have accrued some wealth, which largely influences voting intention.

Another problem is older folk are more heavily influenced by traditional newspapers and that style of media, their days are numbered though.

It will change over time, but the boomers are currently running the show. Obviously, over time this will fade, but with low birth rates mean things are not going to go "left" at any sort of speed.

The old and the boomers need/ will need the NHS, and hopefully they actually want their families to have a good life, so maybe we might see a voting intention change, for the really old, don't think much can be done about those just younger/ less old though. A lot of those will be fairly set in their ways by now.
Teach politics as a core subject in school it is much more important than reading or writing
 
Teach politics as a core subject in school it is much more important than reading or writing
I have always said that some sort of public speaking and debating should be a core part of schooling. There's not a single job that I can think of where being able to express yourself verbally is unimportant.
 
Teach politics as a core subject in school it is much more important than reading or writing
I'm sorry. You want a generation of kids that are barely literate but can tell you the difference between socialism and communism?

Interesting...
 
I'm sorry. You want a generation of kids that are barely literate but can tell you the difference between socialism and communism?

Interesting...
How the world is managed is more important than literacy yes.

However I never said kids shouldn't be taught to read and write and all my kids could do just that before they started school.
 
How the world is managed is more important than literacy yes.
It really isn't. How can a kid with limited literacy then expand their knowledge and understanding of even the politics that they have been taught? Sorry, literacy is THE most single important skill set that kids can acquire. I notice that you taught your kids to read and write yet neglected their political understanding yourself...
 
Back
Top