Forum menu
very effectively put to bed quickly by the party’s leader.
I am not sure claiming that a comment made by a Labour MP is racist and supporting the decision to suspend her pending the outcome of a disciplinary procedure, which he claims he wasn't involved in, is putting the issue "to bed quickly".
It in fact seems to be doing the complete opposite - dragging out the whole issue unnecessarily.
Upon hearing that her comments had been recorded Rupa Huq immediately and personally gave an unqualified apology to Kwarteng. Putting the issue to bed quickly would have been Starmer saying that Ms Huq had personally apologised to Mr Kwarteng and that was the end of the matter.
Instead we now have to wait for the outcome of the disciplinary procedure, which has already been prejudicially affected by Starmer's claim that Huq's comment was definitely racist, and which might result in Huq's permanent expulsion from the party.
I don't know if any appeals procedures might drag it out even longer although I suspect probably not as the concept of natural justice doesn't rank very highly in such matters. My understanding is that you are lucky if you have been given a specific reason for your expulsion from the Labour Party - the reason often appears to be very vague and generalised.
He did what had to be done to put it to bed while the Labour Party Conference was getting media and public attention. An essential move. The public had to hear the messages from the conference for them to consider changing their vote to Labour. Polls suggest that the messages at least partly got through. The future? Her apology will probably prevent her expulsion. There was no “but” to it. She’ll probably have the whip back at the end of the process, by when the comment will no longer be as live and it won’t be the week of a conference.
He did what had to be done
No he didn't. He should have said that it wouldn't be appropriate for him to comment as it had been referred to the NEC and in the meantime she had been suspended.
Instead he decided to indulge the right-wing press by publicly judging her and claiming that her comment was definitely racist.
How can she have a fair hearing now after the party leader, whose supporters have a majority on the NEC, has already publicly judged her and accused her of racism?
The woman is a right-wing Labour MP and Starmer supporter, the only reason I am pointing out that imo she has been treated unfairly is because I believe in basic justice, which is a concept that Starmer as a lawyer should understand.
I also think her comment was daft but not racist, in the same way as a black person calling a black man an "Uncle Tom" isn't racist.
It in fact seems to be doing the complete opposite – dragging out the whole issue unnecessarily
Certainly seems to be here. As before, there are many criticisms that could have been leveled at kwarteng, none of which needed reference to his colour. Move on.
I'd level that he's either (a) incompetent for the role he now has, or (b) he really totally couldn't give a shiiite about how the proles live or starve or freeze or are homeless, or (c) he's trying to get into Lizzy's knickers by doing her evil bidding for her.
Or maybe (d) ALL of the above.
none of which needed reference to his colour.
Missed this bit?
I also think her comment was daft
Move on.
Not yet - we need the result of the disciplinary process first.
She has already been judged guilty of racism by Starmer so if the decision to restate her is made the headline will be "Labour MP guilty of racism has her suspension lifted".
If the disciplinary process ends with her being expelled from the party for racism then it carries on for much longer as she either permanently stays as an independent MP untill the next general election or she resigns and forces a by-election.
Quite why the Labour Party wouldn't expell someone guilty of racism I don't know. There is no 'good' or 'bad' racism, all racism is bad and shouldn't be tolerated. Making a racist comment is definitely racism.
The ^earlier chat re PR is interesting - it's easily forgotten that we had a referendum on the issue in 2011.
It's easy to consign it to the history bin of ideas, mostly because it was designed to fail.
AV is the poor man's idea of PR - but it was what was on offer. It was quite clear at the time that it was being offered because it wasn't particularly attractive.
The choice was seen by too many people as do you want this, or that, and they chose this.
Thing is, AV wasn't the end point - it was somewhere along the way - too many people who were actually pro PR voted against AV, because it wasn't the end they wanted, and they weren't willing to make incremental changes.
Because AV wasn't the form of PR they wanted, they were willing to gift their opponents the overwhelming mandate that this country has no appetite for PR.
It's ^up there - 2 to 1 'we' don't want 'any' form of PR.
Sometimes you have to play a longer game than you would like to play.
Ultimately, even if Starmer isn't the first past your post, he's got to be higher on your transferable than the blue ticket, yes?
I've just seen that today's Mail on Sunday is carrying on the Rupa Huq story and fully exploiting Starmer's accusation of racism.
Apparently Kwarteng gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday :
Kwasi Kwarteng has launched a hard-hitting attack on Labour for characterising him as not ‘the right sort of black person’, as he derided the party’s record on diversity.
The under-fire Chancellor spoke out in an exclusive Mail on Sunday interview, in which he also defended his mini-Budget that caused turmoil on the international money markets and alarmed Tory MPs.
Mr Kwarteng branded Labour as ‘backward’ when it came to identity politics as he gave his first response to their MP Rupa Huq shockingly describing him as ‘superficially’ black.
So instead of being fully held for account for his appalling budget in which he put money into the pockets of the wealthy during a cost of living crises, Kwarteng is able to divert attention away from himself and attack the Labour Party.
Starmer accusing a Labour MP of racism doesn't seem to have put the matter to bed.
And the Liberal Democrats in Rupa Huq's constituency are also fully exploiting Starmer's intervention on the matter:
On Wednesday (28 September), the Leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, criticised Huq telling LBC what she said was “racist” and “wrong”. The Shadow Culture Secretary, Lucy Powell, echoed Sir Keir’s criticism: “Rupa’s comments were racist, in my view, they were wrong, they were incredibly stupid” she said.
Ealing’s Liberal Democrat Leader drew on Labour’s slap down of Huq, going further and calling for her resignation over what he described as a pattern of racist comments.
https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/ealing-lib-dems-call-for-rupa-huq-to-resign/
What was probably a light-hearted comment at a fringe meeting which wasn't intended to be taken too seriously, concerning Kwarteng's Eton education not being typical of the UK's black community, has now escalated thanks to the Labour leader instead of saying "no comment, it is being investigated" publicly denouncing it as racism, and thereby providing Kwarteng an excellent distraction when he should be on the ropes.
The ^earlier chat re PR is interesting – it’s easily forgotten that we had a referendum on the issue in 2011.
No we didn't!
AV is the poor man’s idea of PR – but it was what was on offer. It was quite clear at the time that it was being offered because it wasn’t particularly attractive.
Which is why it failed.
It’s ^up there – 2 to 1 ‘we’ don’t want ‘any’ form of PR.
AV is not PR which is why it was rejected. It's still winner takes all.
Proportionality
IRV is a single-winner application of a proportional voting method, technically single-winner STV with a droop quota (50%+1). Like all winner-take-all voting methods, IRV tends to exaggerate the number of seats won by the largest parties; small parties without majority support in any given constituency are unlikely to earn seats in a legislature, although their supporters will be more likely to be part of the final choice between the two strongest candidates.[62] A simulation of IRV in the 2010 UK general election by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that the election would have altered the balance of seats among the three main parties, but the number of seats won by minor parties would have remained unchanged.[63]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Proportionality
I agree there was an element of cutting noses off to spite our faces (I voted for it BTW) but when even the people presenting the case weren't committed it was only going to go one way. I'd have sooner taken our STV system which has been proven to mostly work than AV but that wasn't on offer for obvious reasons.
instead of saying “no comment, it is being investigated”
Was tried by multiple front benchers the night before. It wasn’t going to work. It would only have stopped Labour getting their policies from conference in front of the public. Where as now, the only chatter about I’ve seen is coming from fake accounts on Twitter, and, er here…
If you find some examples of Labour interviews the night before, they make it bleedingly obvious why Starmer took a different approach the following morning.
………………
Oh, and the AV system proposed wasn’t PR. That referendum was also a very useful proving ground for the people and bodies that went on to give us Brexit, Johnson and Truss. In many ways the start of “all this”, and one of the biggest mistake the LibDems. Totally out played!
Not Starmer's fault Huq said something racist. He can't sack her. He was in a lose/lose situation, it's her own stupid fault.
The hypocrisy of the Mail running the story though! FML
Starmer accusing a Labour MP of racism doesn’t seem to have put the matter to bed.
Exactly. The Tories managed to turn just about any negative press into something positive (aided of course by the largely right-wing mass media. This is a trick Labour still haven't learned. What Starmer should have done, is immediately gone on the offensive and highlighted just how much Tory policies would affect those in minority groups, particularly people of colour. He could then have neatly segued onto how badly the old and infirm would be affected, linked in just how badly the NHS will struggle this winter, etc. Moved the debate so far from the original 'offence', that people would have more or less forgotten it. That is classic Tory tactics, but it works. Politics is a very dirty game, and Starmer is to busy trying to out-nice Corbyn. Never going to work. Labour may well be enjoying a mythical lead in current polls, but that's meaningless in the context of an electoral cycle. To conjour a footballing analogy; it's like Starmer has nicked the ball off the opposition striker, rounded his own goalkeeper and fired a rocket into the top corner. And then turned round and realising it was the wrong goal, and it's the opposition who are cheering.
I agree there was an element of cutting noses off to spite our faces (I voted for it BTW) but when even the people presenting the case weren’t committed it was only going to go one way. I’d have sooner taken our STV system which has been proven to mostly work than AV but that wasn’t on offer for obvious reasons.
But that's exactly it - it was obvious that it was a sham to 'prove' that there was no appetite for electoral reform.
So even people that did have an appetite for electoral reform took part in putting the argument back by decades because it wasn't the 'right' question.
It is not entirely fanciful to suggest, given that we have had rather more active election cycles over the last decade than you would normally expect, that the argument would have moved on, and change would have begat more change, and the clamour for 'more' would have more weight...
But 'We' voted No - and by a super majority to boot - so, you see, it is quite clear, there is no appetite for electoral reform in the UK.
Well, 20 point leads for Labour over the Conservatives might have been a pleasant surprise... but now they're polling over 50%...
https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1578338358732140545?s=21
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1578410947865108481?s=20&t=UGQvSgyWEKCEaDKnznD_xg
And that New Statesman piece linked to is interesting... tactical voting seems more likely as the Tory support falls... possibly returning many more Labour seats in the North of England... not scaring off tactical voters (who then may become more enthusiastic Labour voters if they win and deliver) is probably part of Starmer's overly cautious approach, and timing, no?
Out of the last 13 national opinion polls 9 of them have given Labour at least 50% of the vote, and the lowest level of support any poll gave Labour is 46%
There is now surprisingly little discrepancy between the polls and they are stable and consistent.
With that sort of margin I think we can reasonably say that it will be absolutely impossible for Liz Truss to reverse her fortune. The U-turn on the top rate did nothing to improve the situation for the Tories.
The Tories's only hope is to quickly replace her but I doubt if even that will now be sufficient for them to form a majority government after next general election.
If Labour maintains this lead over the Tories tactical voting won't be necessary to stop the Tories, bad news probably for the LibDems imo but possibly good news for the Greens.
It will also strengthen Starmer's hand if he continues to oppose the Labour Party's Conference decision to back PR.
Bad news for the LibDems in terms of votes, but not in terms of seats, perhaps. That tactical vote thing works both ways... voters in Tory/LibDem marginals more likely to back LibDem candidates if the fear of Labour is being neutralised, and the Tories remain the mess that they are. As for the Greens... I'll take that bet now... only one seat no matter the size of the national vote share. Sadly. As for Labour and PR... the fudge will be proposing an upper house elected by some form of PR, I suspect. Doesn't mean PR for the Commons is dead... they will just try and push it away as an issue for this election... focus, focus, focus. They'll be more elections though...
The national chart from that article…
According to that ^^ LibDem support drops by 2% compared to last general election but they double their total number of MPs.
Interesting stuff but I doubt that the Tories will be down to 83 MPs after the next general election.
Kier Starmer has said a thing…
Keir Starmer: UK needs election now whether Liz Truss stays or goes
“My approach on this is to challenge the proposition that governments lose elections. I believe oppositions have to win them…”
All the models are broken…
https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1582039734846574592?s=21
Any other leader would be… er…
Polls are nice, but do you really think that all those true blues will suddenly stop voting, i hear the same stuff every time, 'brexit was a nightmare, but labour would have been worse', 'The way COVID was handled was a nightmare, but labour would have been worse' and so on.
We literally have a lot of people voting tory because they think they align with that party, reality is they tend to want what labour have to offer, but too stubborn or daft to actually look into why and who they vote for, other than the colour of their rosette.
Have no doubt, the next GE will be a real battle, unless we have a horrific couple of years and Truss continues to lead with no real ability, but i just don't see them imploding in the 6 month run up to a GE, it's their bread and butter, roll out the good stuff to line up with the voting polls.
do you really think that all those true blues will suddenly stop voting
No, which is why I said “all the models are broken”, the pollsters simply can’t handle this big a public shift in sentiment away from the party in power and towards the opposition. Despite what any polling is indicating, there are big battles ahead for sure. Starmer has handled a few things right this year though… his slow steady take down of Johnson, the timing of the announcement of what to do about energy this winter, announcing clearly different from Tory but understood to be achievable by the public policies at conference, especially on long term energy and NHS staffing, the vocal and unqualified distain of “trickle down” economics when the government looked to the public to be embracing it… etc.
"Freedom of movement has gone and it's not coming back."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63526167
Are we at the Centrist tipping point yet? (No they're ahead in the polls - do whatever it takes. To know your enemy, you must become your enemy.)
This guy stands for nothing.
Just about the only way back for the Tories now is for this Labour front bench to support the return of FoM. Freedom of movement is coming back, eventually... but make the next election about that issue and you get another five years of Labour farting about on the opposition benches.
Both parties are beating themselves into an unwinnable war, not for the good of the electorate and the economy.
It's not going to matter a jot who wins because they are hairs breadth apart.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1589321059274485763?s=20&t=7utTmTE4UDN6-a4T1rugSg
To get out of this fix - there should be a strong enough argument to challenge anything Tory these days.
FOM isn't coming back and there are too many immigrants in the NHS. Is SKS auditioning to be leader of the Tories?
It’s not going to matter a jot who wins because they are hairs breadth apart.
Not true. But refighting the 2019 election will only go one way for Labour. The next election has to be shamefully parochial for Labour if they are to win... policies based on what we do in Britain... throw in a few "Greats" for the full effect... if they go in on our relationship with Europe and open borders, the Tory team will be thanking their lucky stars. They are working hard to keep immigration top of the news agenda... the know it's their only chance to win the public over. Again.
Yes - he is. He's been on this trajectory for a while - because having some principles and putting stuff out there for the good of the country appears to not be a way forward.
Freedom of movement is coming back, eventually…
Really? Oh...
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1584474401298608130?t=TGeS3ldnT1eEqc6YJfboVA&s=08
So, 'not a great deal between the main parties on immigration'. Starmer favouring a 'points based system', which would inevitably favour certain demographics over others.
To know your enemy, you must become your enemy
Pretty much.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Not true. But refighting the 2019 election will only go one way for Labour. The next election has to be shamefully parochial for Labour if they are to win… if they go in on Europe and open borders, the Tory team will be thanking their lucky stars.
I feel your pain BUT when and if they're in power to stay in power they will have to ape the Tories constantly to survive.
Why do you think just because they win they will switch motives? It's not going to happen.
I would be slightly ever so slightly more positive if I could think of one ground-breaking recent Labour sound-bite that is worth fighting for.
(I completely understand why Starmer is doing what he's doing - but he's not giving the left/progressives a whiff of hope.)
Why do you think just because they win they will switch motives?
They won't. They will need to be pushed. Hard. You think campaigners just sit back and think "job done" if we get a Labour PM? They will need to double their efforts to move Labour (and the public), and use the increased distance from the "great democratic event of the mid 00s" to their advantage. But fighting this next election with the Tories having big "Labour favour open borders", "Labour to undo Brexit" flags to wave would be political suicide (in many parts of England).
They won’t. They will need to be pushed. Hard. You think campaigners just sit back and think “job done” if we get a Labour PM. They will need to double their efforts to move Labour, and use the increased distance from the “great democratic event of the mid 00s” to their advantage. Fighting this next election with the Tories having a big “Labour favour open borders” flag to wave would be political suicide.
Then as before shift the narrative to what really is in front of the UK - recession, economic mismangement, cost of living, green stuff.
There's loads to be pushy about.
Your route is doomed to failure becuase Labour are simply being flipped poltically instead of using robust arguments to attain power - of which there are hundreds.
FOM isn’t coming back and there are too many immigrants in the NHS. Is SKS auditioning to be leader of the Tories?
he's not wrong on the first one is he? unless we get back to negotiating table the CU and FOM aren't coming back, and it's a misrepresentation of what he said about the latter. We (in this country) keep the number of university places for doctors artificially low to 8,000 places. Approximately 30,000 students with the right grades applied this year, we're losing GPs at a rate of about 350-500 every year. It's arguably morally wrong to rely on foreign trained doctors to staff the NHS, and at the same time tremendously short-sighted.
he’s not wrong on the first one is he?
According to Kelvin it is - and I dare bet he's not alone in thinking that.
Approximately 30,000 students with the right grades applied this year, we’re losing GPs at a rate of about 350-500 every year. It’s arguably morally wrong to rely on foreign trained doctors to staff the NHS, and at the same time tremendously short-sighted.
It's funny these arguments didn't appear when progressives made a case for FOM. Why now other than Labour feel they've got to ape the Tories?
recession, economic mismangement, cost of living, green stuff
Wise of Labour to focus on all that at their conference then. This "train more NHS staff, a plan for future staffing shouldn't overly rely on recruiting from abroad" line picked on doesn't change any of that.
Why now other than Labour feel they’ve got to ape the Tories?
The policy on NHS staff training isn't one that Labour have stolen from the Tories, is it? I'm hoping that the Tories ape Labour on this one, to be honest. It would be good to feel that whoever wins the next election they have committed to sort out medical training... an issue where consensus and long term planning would be welcome.
Wise of Labour to focus on all that at their conference then. This “train more NHS staff, a plan for future staffing shouldn’t overly rely on recruiting from abroad” line picked on doesn’t change any of that.
They didn't they argued for fiscal responsibilty - and tried to fudge a few morsels in there.
It's a contradiction.
"That is why I set out the fiscal rules for the next Labour government a year ago. Every policy that Labour announces – and every line in our manifesto – will be carefully costed and fully funded." RR.
They will simply not be in a place to fix anything.
will be carefully costed and fully funded
Yes. It will be. Obviously. Just as it was at previous elections.
As NickC says, his comments were about Labours pledge for 6500 more places at university in the UK to keep up with demand, rather than hope we can plunder other countries medically trained people to fill our gaps.
Same with Freedom of Movement, it's gone, i'd hazard a guess that the Labour party know the risks associated with trying to bring it back, and that's driving their choices if they were elected, there's so many questions associated with this, how do you set up the agreement again, what are the costs associated and risks to this, will this then limit the movement of those outside the agreement again, i.e. Rest of the World, etc, etc.
As always, the same faces are making the judgement already about how it's a negative for Labour, instead of looking at the pro's and con's for this entire argument, hell we don't even know what cap rate they have on the points system either at this point, or what Labours plans are for the current immigration nightmare the Tories have created.
This “train more NHS staff, a plan for future staffing shouldn’t overly rely on recruiting from abroad”
British jobs for British workers, then?
Yes. It will be. Obviously. Just as it was at previous elections.
Corbyn's manifesto was torn to shreds even though it was 'fully costed.'
Besides when Labour talk about fully costed - they use stupid maths involving inflation and the like to make up the short fall - like the windfall on energy. They're nowhere near fully costed.
It's a nonsense.
Because you know as well as I the only way to put significant new money into society is to deficit spend.
British jobs for British workers then?
Nope
Its a moral position from other stuff I have heard from the labour party over this and I agree with that. Recruiting overseas nurses and doctors in general ( spain was a special case) and especially from poorer / developing countries damages their healthcare badly as it strips them of staff. One of the carribean islands had to shut its only ITU as 80% of the ITU nurses working on the island were recruited to work in the UK.
We do not train enough doctors and nurses to staff the NHS. We need to be self suficient so as not to strip badly needed healthcare workers from countries that desparatly need them. Post brexit it is worse.
Deficit spend is happening. Unavoidable now. Whoever is in government. The priority on how the money is spent is the battle ground. And that's what the recent "costings" tend to be.... "The Tories would choose to do that, where as we would choose to do this".
As always, the same faces are making the judgement already about how it’s a negative for Labour, instead of looking at the pro’s and con’s for this entire argument, hell we don’t even know what cap rate they have on the points system either at this point, or what Labours plans are for the current immigration nightmare the Tories have created.
That's because Labour aren't putting anything at all out there that I can remotely support.
Also I think it's more cynical than you guys are letting on - it's simply to put Starmer in the mind of the Tory voter with these sound-bites. He's doing it all himself. It doesn't take a punter to look at the pros and cons.
It serves no other purpose.
One in five doctors in the NHS are foreign born, and the vast majority of those come from South Asia (16%) and only 4% come from other EU countries, so FOM within the EU was having almost no effect on GPs/doctors migration.
Deficit spend is happening. Unavoidable now. Whoever is in government. The priority on how the money is spent is the battle ground. And that’s what the recent “costings” tend to be…. “The Tories would choose to do that, where as we would choose to do this”.
Agree to a point.
But no one wants to admit it and run with it, it's at odds with fiscal responsiblity too.
And it's not enough to fix the problems we have.
We do not train enough doctors and nurses to staff the NHS
This. We need a plan to train more.
We need to be self suficient
This will never happen, and healthcare workers moving between countries is necessary and useful to all sides. But trying to use it to fill ALL the current and predicated gaps in the NHS is unsustainable.
put Starmer in the mind of the Tory voter with these sound-bites
People who have voted Tory need to be voting Labour with us come the next election. They need to be encouraged to do so. Efforts to get them onboard are an easy target, even when it is selling them something we should all be able to get behind... training more NHS staff. But those "Tory voters" need to bought on board. They live here as well, remember.
We do not train enough doctors and nurses to staff the NHS. We need to be self suficient so as not to strip badly needed healthcare workers from countries that desparatly need them. Post brexit it is worse.
Don't some healthcare works then go back to their countries with skills to help fix stuff?
there are too many immigrants in the NHS.
I think I've said this on here before.
Chatting with a consultant neighbour the other day, he said pension changes mean lots of 50 - something staff have left the NHS. There is no solution, so government has been recruiting from India and Philippines extensively.
Link that to eastern Europe nurses going home, Covid, stress, etc and it's yet another bit of a mess.
Don’t some healthcare works then go back to their countries with skills to help fix stuff?
Not really. Maybe a few edge cases but most of them settle here. overseas recruitment in the NHS damages overseas healthcare. Well known, well researched and totally abhorrent.
Imagine losing your countries only ITU because the UK took all the nurses. How many folk died?
FOM within the EU was having almost no effect on GPs/doctors migration.
Nurses was very differnt. We took a lot of EU nurses. Spain used to train far more than they needed so spanish nurses often had no job when they finished training. So they came to the UK. Now they do not want to come here after how they are treated and with all the hassle post brexit. We lost a thousand nurses recruited a month to brexit
There is no solution
There is - train more nurses. Its not really the pension changes for nurses - that was doctors. Its that there is an aging workforce in nursing in the UK. this has been known about for a decade or more. the tories because they want to destroy the NHS actually increased the barriers to training nurses
Not really.
Really. Especially in specialisms such as cardiology. Staff moving between, and back and forth between, different countries does help all sides. But we need to be training more staff for the future. Moving between countries will continue no matter what, and it should, but we absolutely need to train more staff here not overly rely on other countries to do so for us.
Nope
Its a moral position from other stuff I have heard from the labour party over this and I agree with that. Recruiting overseas nurses and doctors in general ( spain was a special case) and especially from poorer / developing countries damages their healthcare badly as it strips them of staff. One of the carribean islands had to shut its only ITU as 80% of the ITU nurses working on the island were recruited to work in the UK.
I'd like to read up on that if you have any links. Thanks.
As NickC says, his comments were about Labours pledge for 6500 more places at university in the UK to keep up with demand, rather than hope we can plunder other countries medically trained people to fill our gaps.
Bit what puts many people off training to become a nurse or doctor, are massive student debts. And massive housing costs. This is why it's a lot easier to recruit from abroad, where people don't have such massive debts to repay, so aren't as stretched financially. Labour needs to reverse tuition fees for starters, before we can even think about recruiting more of Our Own™. And I don't see them saying anything about that.....
Yep, improve the foundation of the NHS to make the medical profession more appealing long term, at the same time as increasing recruitment, that will win votes for me, not just making our own (to a point), but improve the whole structure around nursing, doctoring, etc.
Freedom of Movement is an argument for another day, it's just a huge unknown regarding rewards versus risk, especially with all the linked areas, such as immigration and how that will progress if Labour get in.
an argument for another day
Should be the Labour Party's motto right now...
It's an ever decreasing downwards spiral... the NHS in so many areas is tough to work in because of a staffing crisis, which results in people leaving and a failure to recruit... deepening the staffing crises. Papering over the cracks is one thing... but increasing training is the only way to repair the damage caused by the Tories longer term. Oh, and.... BRING BACK THE BURSARY.
Freedom of Movement is an argument for another day
Another decade. One of the reasons that many of us wanted "a second vote" (measure twice, cut once) on Brexit is because the damage it has writ on the UK in just a few years will take decades to repair, decades wasted for the many, especially those entering adulthood during those years of reduced freedoms and opportunities without rich parents behind them.
BRING BACK THE BURSARY
Tower Hamlets is the only borough in the UK to have reintroduced the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) and university bursaries to enable young people to go to university. Problem is, Tower Hamlets is led by Mayor Lutfur Rahman, which the Labour right tried smearing several years ago, yet still failed to prevent him from returning to local politics (mainly because most people in TH now hate the Labour party anyway, and understandably, given all they did when in power there was sell off loads of public buildings and land, enable massive corporations to set up there unopposed, and generally failed to address local needs). So, that's one, extremely deprived borough, leading the way. A bit embarrassing really.
which the Labour right tried smearing several years ago
You mean he was found guilty of electoral fraud?
There is – train more nurses.
The bursary for nurses training used to be £10,000 back in 2016, it was cut by George Osborne and was only recently re-introduced (2020 I thnk) at £5,000 and there's another £1000 is your training is in (for example) mental health, Training to be a nurse is now a complex degree course with a low starting salary (and a couple of years of effectively zero pay rise) and years of on the job training, so massive amounts of vacancies, unsurprisingly. No wonder trusts are recruiting overseas.
We need to be self suficient so as not to strip badly needed healthcare workers from countries that desparatly need them.
So, don't steal the nurses and doctors then, just the scientists and the other high-tech specialists that will, apparently, be given priority?
Are there any countries around the world who don't prioritise highly-educated workers in their immigration policies? I'm not saying it's right to do so, but even a casual glance at say; any EU or Canada (randomly) will give you extra points for your immigration status if you're an engineer, or scientist.
I've seen adverts today inviting medics to western Australia (pretty good service to work for I hear).
Sure, but it rather blows apart the moral argument when, for instance, you're prepared to attract the engineers working on clean water supplies but not the doctors and nurses who might have to treat those suffering through the use of dirty water.
Really. Especially in specialisms such as cardiology. Staff moving between, and back and forth between, different countries does help all sides.
Thats not the bulk of what is happening tho. Its not skilled people moving for a year or two to enhance their skills. Its people moving from India, Phillipines, Caribbean and never returning. Its a carribean island no longer having an ITU because all the nurses moved to the UK and never returned.
I worked in healthcare for decades. Not one asian nurse went home in that time that I knew. Every Asian nurse I worked with immigrated here permanently
You mean he was found guilty of electoral fraud?
He wasn't. No criminal charges against him were ever brought. The case against him seemed to consist of allegations and smears, and more than a whiff of racism, and stuff like 'he gave out snacks to people to win their votes!'. Very little actual 'evidence', and none that could be linked directly to him. Anyway; he's back, and doing a much better job than his Labour predecessor, by all accounts. EMA, bursaries, the only borough in the UK to provide free home care for elderly residents, the largest affordable home building project of any borough in the UK, free school meals for all primary school kids, one of the only areas to actually increase police officer numbers. Not bad for a 'corrupt' politician...
Sure, but it rather blows apart the moral argument
Given the difference in cost (in many cases publicly funded) and length of training for a doctor compared with a water engineer I'd say there's less of a case morally for the former, and does more harm.
No criminal charges against him were ever brought.
He was found guilty of electoral fraud. That doesn't happen in a criminal court, it's for the Electoral Commission. Judge led. Belittle the evidence and the findings if you want, but it wasn't just a case that "the Labour right tried smearing" him, the election result was overturned and a five year ban handed down by the commission. Lots of good policies happening under him now... but we can't only want high standards in office, and when campaigning, from those we disagree with politically.
He was found guilty of electoral fraud. That doesn’t happen in a criminal court, it’s for the Electoral Commission. Judge led. Belittle the evidence and the findings if you want, but it wasn’t just a case that “the Labour right tried smearing” him, the election result was overturned and a five year ban handed down by the commission.
And yet here he is, back bloodying Labour's nose for a second time. And showing them how to run a borough. That was a Labour stronghold. That they lost. To a 'corrupt' politician.
Tell me; what are Labour doing wrong, there?
Scotroutes is correct . Nicking all their engineers is the same. Its just we do it less and its effects are less obvious
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-60524576/blockquote >
But
One of the carribean islands had to shut its only ITU as 80% of the ITU nurses working on the island were recruited to work in the UK.
I didn't know Zimbabwe had moved to the Caribbean. Perhaps that was because of hyperinflation...
Its just an example of why stripping nurses from developing countries is unfair and wrong. the carribean ITU one is from a decade ago
Nicking all their engineers is the same.
Then the end point of that argument is that recruiting any foreign trained "whatever" is morally bad. and Rone's point about FOM is a valid one.
As that's clearly an unsustainable position, you have to have a grading of your morals. I'd rather be in a position that means we don't have to recruit/steal doctors from African nations, when they are difficult and costly to train, I'm less bothered about water sanitation engineers as it's less time consuming and costly to train more of them.
We live in a world of grey after all.
That's simple economic migrancy though, isn't it? Plenty of UK trained nurses have left to go and work overseas (for better pay and lifestyle), and the vast majority of ones we see coming to work here, are from much poorer countries. So isn't at least part of the problem that our own nurses aren't paid enough? Is Labour committed to increasing nurses pay and conditions?
So isn’t at least part of the problem that our own nurses aren’t paid enough?
yes. and it's both more costly and more difficult to become a nurse in this country.
Is Labour committed to increasing nurses pay and conditions?
I think their plan currently is have an independent board to "Plan workforce projections" (whatever that actually means) I don't know if that means pay though 🤷♀️
I’ve seen adverts today inviting medics to western Australia
Beardy bloke sat on a rock in the desert? Been getting the same one. Couldn't pay me enough.
I think their plan currently is have an independent board to “Plan workforce projections” (whatever that actually means) I don’t know if that means pay though 🤷♀️
So no, then. Ok.
The other side of it is workforce security. We've seen the drawbacks of being reliant on overseas gas, on overseas nuclear expertise, on overseas manufacturing when supply chains get messed up, that can happen with anything that we import including people. (it's really unpleasant to think of people as a sort of commodity of course, but it's also true). So as countries get wealthier, develop more ageing populations or higher healthcare expectations, we stop being able to nick their doctors so easily. If you think talk of winter powercuts is bad, I really don't want to face 6 years of doctorcuts while we frantically try and train more of our own.
Specific to Starmer, I appreciate that for a long time now it's been fashionable to think of this as being basically a Tory country by default and that the only way Labour can succeed is by maneouvering close to them and taking the, lol, centre ground. But the fact that it's still such a major part of the strategy now is depressing. There's never been a better time to say to people "Look, you voted Tory, you trusted them with the economy, you trusted them with brexit, you thought they were competent. Now look where we are." The exodus of voters <want> something different. And the closer Labour sail to the Tories, the more credibility they inevitably give them- you can't slam a party while trying to take their territory.
Honestly, how much of a lead do Labour need to have in order to stop acting like they're passengers? People saying "they're doing this to get in power, then they can do different things once they're in"- if they don't absolutely need to do it today but they're choosing to do it, why expect different once they're in power?