Forum menu
I'm going to always come at this from the economic side of things.
But key for me is that the UK government can always afford what's available.
If there's capacity in the NHS to deliver then there's a cheque waiting.
It might take a long time to deliver but there's zero reason to look to the private sector for this.
Things are falling apart with the reliance on the private sector to somehow create magic efficiencies to deliver better service.
Labour are utterly trapped because of this. This is what household budgeting does to the economy - it means less state money for everything and because the private sector pot is drying up then that is totally inadequate too.
Private sector can only do a decent job if the state is properly invested first. Not the other way around.
Private healthcare is ultimately a nonsense as you have the same group of people needing attention. Everyone is still fighting for the same resources.
The same limiting factor.
Putting a fee in the way is totally inefficient in itself. You're just controlling who has access to what by income rather than solving the original problem.
Economic side of things? Extra shift for a hospital doctor: £1k, from an agency: £5.25k.
Economic side of things? Extra shift for a hospital doctor: £1k, from an agency: £5.25k.
Nailed.
This whole market economy only works if you understand that all is happening you are just servicing less and less of the population effectively.
And you brush them under the carpet.
But the rub is they're still part of society so you still have a problem to fix!
This is the thing with strikes - they can mostly be sorted by the government's purse - but once they cave the charade of government spending is blown. This is why they stick them out until the public tire of the strikers.
johnx2 Free Member
let’s first look at Ernie’s favourite union’s advice on the matter…
I know that you are quite relaxed about what is actually a fact and what constitutes the truth John but my recognition of the undeniably fact, despite your desperate denials, that Wes Streeting has publicly criticised healthcare professionals working within the NHS does not automatically equate with the BMA being favourite trade union.
I do not consider any trade union not affiliated to the TUC to be a legitimate trade union. The BMA was forced, reluctantly, by a Conservative government to register as a trade union, I don't rely on Tory governments to tell me what a trade union is.
Doctors can join Unite if they want to join a proper trade union as opposed to just a professional body.
Of course all this is a deliberate distraction on your part as Wes Streeting's attack on healthcare professionals working within the NHS goes far beyond the BMA:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/10/labour-vows-war-hostile-health-unions/
"Mr Streeting said a Labour government could not afford the pay rises nurses are seeking"
I doubt that many nurses employed by the NHS have membership of the BMA.
Its worth noting again that the scottish nurses have settled their pay claim ( well a couple of ballots still to come in but it looks like it). Of course the English NHS disputes could be settled with the political will and affordably at that
labours aversion to the SNP is preventing them using the scottish example to beat the tories with. They cannot admit the SNP get anything right and thus canot use this to attack the tories
labours aversion to the SNP is preventing them using the scottish example to beat the tories with.
Nah, it's ideology/political commitment that makes Wes Streeting say stuff like this: "a Labour government could not afford the pay rises nurses are seeking”, it has nothing to do with the SNP.
And not least because he is a member of the Labour Party Wes Streeting knows full well that the pay rise a trade union asks for and what they are prepared to accept can be very significantly different.
He is playing to the gallery as he attempts to portray nurses as being unreasonable and making unaffordable demands whilst offering himself to voters as the reasonable guy who will be tough on greedy and unrealistic trade unions.
At anytime it would be deplorable for a senior Labour politician to publicly attack healthcare workers with cheap disingenuous shots. But to do it at a particularly critical time when they are engaged in making legitimate demands, from a right-wing Tory government which has had such a negative effect on the NHS, is particularly galling.
By portraying nurses as making unreasonable demands Wes Streeting is without a shadow of a doubt assisting the current Tory government - they really couldn't wish for more from a Shadow Health Secretary.
Wes Streeting’s attack on healthcare professionals working within the NHS goes far beyond the BMA:
Er, from your link Ernie:
The MP for Ilford North said that if Labour won the election he would not hesitate to take on unions holding back the cause of patients, singling out the British Medical Association (BMA) for being “hostile” to the idea that patients should expect better standards.
...also to TJ,
Seems you agree with everything I say.
Deal with it 😎. I'm not the enemy.
Also, the same telegraph piece talks about £15m funding for lab from unions. Its readers (not Ernie) might be persuaded that this somehow could be a bribe. It's just not helpful language to chuck about.
Right. I've earned another week or so off this thread. Let's see who can resist the last word. Bet it's me 😁.
it is bribery tho - its exactly what it is. Taking money from dubious sources to promote them. Streeting is corrupt. Thats why he is promoting private healthcare as a solution when it isn't. Pure corruption
You seemed to be saying that Streetings position on using private healthcare was sensible but then all the quotes you gave showed how stupid it is
Neither of us will have the last word - I too only dip in and out of this 🙂
Right. I’ve earned another week or so off this thread. Let’s see who can resist the last word 😁.
Is this not the third time today that you have declared no more contributions from you on this thread?
Despite your apparent best intentions it is clearly you that can't "resist".
Oh he is well media trained. Its doesn't mean he is not a corrupt tory tho. His comments on the NHS strikes are appalling as are his picking a fight with GPs for no reason other than to look tough. Straight out of the tory playbook
Bang on TJ, politics does not equal presentation.
Quiet in here despite Starmer's embarrassing performance at PMQs yesterday and his failure to support the nurses. If a labour leader can't support nurses who have been forced to strike for the very first time then just what the **** is he doing in that job?
If a labour leader can’t support nurses who have been forced to strike for the very first time then just what the **** is he doing in that job?
It's quite the question, isn't it?
Who is he more scared of when it comes to the optics of supporting the nurses?
The Home Counties would be Libdem voters?
Labour's former supporters in the Red Wall who went all Brexity?
I suspect, unfortunately, the answer is both.
Two spineless leaders unable to get behind its population and help them have a better standard of living.
Let's make enemies of them instead?
What a time to be alive.
The sad thing is this is all fixable. The market is making a complete mess of living standards.
High inflation, higher interest rates, deflating wages, shockingly poor government investment, local authorities on their knees.
I'm mean what will it take to turn the taps on?
Nurses with more money is GOOD for the economy. They will spend their money!
The whole thing is so dumbass on any economic level.
https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/1603098978186579968?t=n6natLcb9hidsypG61KyTw&s=19
The brainless libertarians continue their ridiculous understanding of consumer economics.
Thickless Murray doesn't understand to get the economy he celebrates then you need a source of money to spend. Doug, that's the wage increase that you're pushing against.
(Also Starmer spending time recently on the Lords thing. Jesus. What a priority.)
Labour’s former supporters in the Red Wall who went all Brexity?
The vast majority of those people will themselves work or have family and friends who work in the NHS/care sector. Starmer has nothing to lose by supporting the nurses in the red wall.
There were some good policies coming from the party conference, it looked like the start of a change of direction. But I have absolutely no confidence in him having the principles to carry through on even them. Every time he is tested he is much more tory than labour, when he is emboldened by circumstances he can present a progressive facade, but any pressure and he veers to the right. That does not bode well for his potential leadership of the country, he will be far too easily swayed by the city and "markets" and the right wing press, he will be far too easily manipulated by the narrative they will present.
Finger on the pulse of topical issues for working people.. 🙄
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1603375785728942087?s=20&t=Ad0pFBOj7BWOZgTHhA44Ng
That video couldn't be more uninspiring and pointless.
It appears only Corbyn had the guts to actually do anything new - despite all the obvious arguments against.
Business beige will not survive the population. Centrists have a lot to answer for.
Every time he is tested he is much more tory than labour, when he is emboldened by circumstances he can present a progressive facade, but any pressure and he veers to the right.
He's way more to the right than any commonsense value of the ideology.
When being in power means more than change.
In theory if more than half the electorate didn't vote Labour because they didn't like Corbyn - then clearly just a change of leader was the obvious ticket?
You’re all looking for problems that aren’t there. Of course Labour want to create a landscape for businesses to thrive, they also want to change circumstances so that public sector workers don’t need to strike. It’s not one or the other. That applies especially to the workers involved in both the rail and NHS strikes. The railways need to be publicly run (not just publicly funded) and we desperately need to sort out NHS staffing levels, conditions and pay. The Tories won’t do it. And they have engineered these strikes so that they can run on a joint “anti-union” “anti-asylumseeker” ticket come the election, hoping we’ll lap up more of what they have to offer… which, for workers… is poor pay, long hours, and a willingness to shut up and do as they’re told in fear of losing their jobs. The government is the problem here. If you still think that the problem is Starmer, then I can only conclude that you want to believe that. Hope that keeps you warm this winter.
He’s way more to the right
Nonsense. Does this sound right-wing?
"Jeremy Corbyn made our party the party of anti-austerity and he was right to do so.
He made us the party that wanted to invest more heavily in our public services and he was right to do so.
And we must retain that, we build on that, we don’t trash it as we go forward.
We should treat the 2017 manifesto as our foundational document, the radicalism and the hope that that inspired across the country was real." - Sir Keir Starmer
[img] 
[/img]
Now a non-denominational winterfest is precisely what Sir Keir would approve of.
Has anyone asked Starmer if Mary had a cervix? And are we right to assume that when Jesus returns for the Second Coming that he/she will still identify with his/her birth gender.
We know Keir Starmer believes that the next James Bond should be a woman, whatever being a woman means, but what are Sir Keir's views on the above? I think we should be told.
Nonsense. Does this sound right-wing?
Your point is lost on me.
He talks one way and acts another. Always been the same.
You’re all looking for problems that aren’t there
And you're making excuses for problems that clearly are.
A right leaning Labour party is not going to solve the problems either.
I've no idea where you get this from.
What’s it like, being you?
Play nice Binners.
What’s it like, being you?
You put the same line to me about 3 years ago.
And I will respond the same:
Bald, bad back, and acid-reflux.
Although the back and the stomach are better these days.
Simple low ball insults are a waste of everyone's time. Though I don't mind something delivered with vim and vigour.
Back on to Labour's film: *Consultants = business*
When has a consultant ever done anything other than suck money out of the system whilst delivering anything of value?
If Labour want to court business with any sort of gravity they need to be talking to people like me who have managed to keep a small business afloat for the last 30 years in an ex-coalfield.
Not bloody consultants.
@scotroutes you know as well as I do if he came out and said he'd work with the SNP or just didn't say he wouldn't he'd be dead before he ever got to the start line. People don't understand coalitions here. Don't frighten the herd.
His answer to the coalition question should be simple.
In 2010 the conservatives entered a coalition of austerity to attack the working people of the country for the benefit of the rich and powerful. In 2017 the conservatives again entered into a deal with a fringe party to wreck havoc on the uk economy and bring the northern Ireland peace agreement close to collapse. It is the conservatives who cannot be trusted.
We will do everything we can to stop this conservative government from continuing its war on the working people of great Britain, to stop the conservative extremists from attacking the nurses and carers and all the other front line staff that they provided with hollow praise and claps during the pandemic and then kicked to the ground when they needed more than patronising words and applause. We will do everything we can to stop the conservatives from transferring the nations wealth to their already rich friends with dodgy deals and VIP lanes, and use that money to build a future for everyone.
Don’t frighten the herd.
That is the number one things he has to achieve and he is achieving it very well. Of course that means he can't possibly try and do anything bold but the theory would be get into power using his strategy (which is working) and then start to do the good stuff we would hope he wants to do but in reality will be just a bit less bad stuff in comparison to tories.
Consultants = business
Consultants - borrow your watch and then tell you the time.
I've only ever really known consultants to be used to supposedly discover things about an organisation then recommend changes - but these changes are almost always detrimental to staff in some way. What the organisation senior management are really doing is paying someone else to recommend the unpopular changes they want to make themselves. Or to sort out a mess following a botched merger - again with the required changes being detrimental to employees.
90% of the time senior management employ consultants because they don't have the balls to do stuff themselves. No wonder those lower down the chain often close ranks when consultants are sniffing about.
That is private companies. Public sector tend to employ minister's mates as consultants for no real reason other than to siphon some money off. Very much like a mosquito, or a leech, sometimes like a tapeworm.
MSP gets it imo, this isn't 2010, the situation is very different today to what it was 12 years ago. You can't come to the same conclusions for a very different situation.
Today support for the Tories has collapsed to levels unknown in living memory. For several months now their share of the vote has been almost always below 30%, with the Labour lead constantly in double figures.
Changing leaders twice hasn't helped the Tories regain their popularity, in fact they are even less popular now than they were two leaders ago
It is clear that the situation is currently very different for the Tories to what it was in 2010. Twelve years ago Labour had been in government for 13 years, by the time of the next general election the Tories will have been in government for 14 years.
There is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of voters do not want another Tory government, unlike 12 years ago they have had enough of Tory governments. A fact which most Tory MPs seem to have little problem recognising.
For Labour to publicly announce under the current situation that they are willing to work with other parties to guarantee the removal of the Tories from government is highly unlikely to cause a voter backlash which results in voters rushing to support a now deeply unpopular Tory Party.
The only thing that can save the Tories now is an economic miracle which results in low prices/cost of living and allows them to pump millions into the NHS and other public services, including transport.
The possibility of all that happening within the next two years is clearly zero, the very best the Tories can hope for is to minimise what will be a catastrophic result next general election.
Having said that Starmer has no need to talk about coalitions with other parties, Labour, and the public, have every reason to believe that Labour could form a majority government after the next general election. Every poll in the last few months has suggested so.
Talking about forming a coalition with the SNP would not benefit Labour. It would suggest that Labour lack the confidence that they have sufficient support to form a government, which doesn't appear to be the case. Furthermore it would boost the perceived importance of the SNP in Westminster.
I reckon Starmer is right not to talk about a Labour coalition government but only because he doesn't need to and it would undermine Labour's currently very strong position.
The possibility of all that happening within the next two years is clearly zero, the very best the Tories can hope for is to minimise what will be a catastrophic result next general election
Then Labour could offer some ideas now for fixing various excremental Tory choices?
If there's no way the Tories will pull it back then let's see something better than poor attempts to court lame versions of business?
Just say the magic words: huge public investment.
This is particularly good news for Labour:
Labour has cause to celebrate not just the victory but also its manner. All seven of the remaining candidates lost their deposits.
Beforehand, there was fanciful talk that the Lib Dem candidate, who'd stood twice before in the Stretford & Urmston constituency, might become a halfway house for disgruntled Conservatives, unhappy about switching straight to Labour.
In fact, the Lib Dems came fourth behind the Greens and only nine votes ahead of the Reform UK candidate.
What I don't understand is why the article makes such an issue about low turnout. This was a by-election in the busy runup to Christmas, in subzero temperatures, in a seat that Labour were 100% certain to win, which whatever the result would still leave the Tories with a huge majority in Westminster. An exceptionally low turnout is hardly surprising.
What is a genuine issue of interest imo though is the issue of Tory voters abstaining. One of the reasons that Labour has had such huge leads in opinion polls in the last few months is that many 2019 former Tory voters are simply claiming to be undecided. Opinium polls make adjustments based on the probability that a percentage will return to the Tories when the general election eventually comes. It means that Opinium polls tend to give Labour much smaller leads than other pollsters although still comfortable leads suggesting Labour majorities.
If there’s no way the Tories will pull it back then let’s see something better than poor attempts to court lame versions of business?
Starmer doesn't need to do that to become Prime Minister. He just needs to point out that he isn't, officially at least, not a Tory politician.
Providing a radical alternative to failed Tory policies is unnecessary hard work which might cause all sorts of complications. Especially if the Tories have nothing better to offer.
The man wants to become Prime Minister, not change the world.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1606566247294017536?t=aHjzWl1hH7IJjFjRA-w-PQ&s=19
Flag, Ukraine, Jesus.
Is this the King's speech or the leader of a left-wing party?
The aesthetics of that backdrop are terrible.
Put the Tree further back and lose the curtains and flag. Also Starmer is slightly to the right there rather than in the centre.
Reclaiming the flag has been an obvious part of Labour’s plan for years now. If that’s not aimed at you, shrug it off as background noise. Others need the reassurance that Labour isn’t anti-British because of the nonsense that our foreign owned press pump out to try and paint them as exactly that. And I have no idea why a leader of a left wing party should avoid mention of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it is the big event of 2022. Ukraine can count on the UK whoever wins the next election, left or right leaning. I hope the same is true across Europe.
All the things you have mentioned are deliberately and cynically offered up here.
I can see straight through them.
You know a solid message about poverty, homelessness etc wouldn't go amiss rather than tactically avoiding all the downsides of the market place.
Neither you nor I can change the situation in Ukraine but we can push for less aggressive economic western values. Things that we can change.
Just hitting several right-baiting notes is clearly the aim.
Let's wait for Sunak's message and see how different it is?
(I can't wait for Starmer to be in power he's going to have a job unwinding all this right leaning commentary.)
People seeing the flag and immediately thinking “right wing” is exactly what needs countering. It’s not “right-baiting”, it is about removing that false choice between your country and a left leaning government. It is not anti-British to vote Labour… a great many people in the UK still think that it is… that the left hate Britain. It’s nonsense, but so are a lot of the political “truths” that our foreign owned press have embedded in the UK. And what’s your problem with mention of Ukraine? Do you think that a left leaning government should/would remove the UK’s support for a population resisting invasion? Or just that a potential PM shouldn’t mention it in an end of year address?
He has no intention of unwinding all that rightwing commentary.
I see you edited your post after I replied to it Rone. Oh well. Some welcome extra nuance there, and I agree with your additional comment about what was missing as regards people suffering here in the UK.
that the left hate Britain.
🙋♂️ I hate Britain. Pretty sure most of my lefty mates do too.
I see you edited your post after I replied to it Rone. Oh well. Some welcome extra nuance there, and I agree with your additional comment about what was missing as regards people suffering here in the UK.
Not intentionally just my usual sloppy phone language probably needed tweaking!
😉
How about calling the Tories unpatriotic for selling all our assets to foreign businesses?
No need to out flag shag them ffs
**** optics.
Reclaiming the flag has been an obvious part of Labour’s plan for years now.
When you say years do you mean 2?
Well, we’re about to enter 2023, and the election drubbing was 2019… call it two years if you want. Feels like longer.
How about calling the Tories unpatriotic for selling all our assets to foreign businesses?
Absolutely.
One of my most painful arguments.
Patriotism never seems to start and end with investing in one's own community, people and resources. You know, like bottom up economics might actually work?
Patriotism shouldn't be defined by a flag. It should be the way you treat your people, especially the vulnerable.
I'm seeing very little of that from Labour.
He has no intention of unwinding all that rightwing commentary.
I don't think he has either.
Those that think he's just doing this to gain power are mistaken.
To keep power they will have to turn up the volume on the right-wing bad cover version. Because, everyone is so terrified of progressive ideas and solutions these days it appears.
Patriotism never seems to start and end with investing in one’s own community, people and resources.
Well Margaret Thatcher, who is still much revered by the Tories, famously said that there was no such thing as society only individuals.
If you don't believe in society how are you going to believe in the nation?
And you can't be patriotic if you have no sense of community or the common good. The Tories definitely lack any sort of understanding of both those virtues.
Well Margaret Thatcher, who is still much revered by the Tories, famously said that there was no such thing as society only individuals.
If you don’t believe in society how are you going to believe in the nation?
Thatcher was so utterly terrible and wrong on so many things (there is no such thing as government money for instance only tax payers - ugh) that history should be less kind to her than it is.
I mean how easy a model is it to start the wholesale strip of public assets, sell them off and claim you have invented a market when the state put it there in the first place? And then revile the state.
At best she was a capitalist con-woman at worse a despicable human being.
The fact we seemed to have learned bugger all since her demise and current leaders still tip-toe in her shadow is an intellectual and political embarrassment.0
Well Margaret Thatcher, who is still much revered by the Tories, famously said that there was no such thing as society only individuals
You know I never really got that statement. Society is simply made up of individuals that use the same roads, hospitals, streets and shops.
We have collective responsibilities otherwise nothing would function.
It's official, ChatGPT says Keir Starmer is not a tory. 🙂 Merry xmas.
Is Keir Starmer a closet tory?
There is no evidence to suggest that Keir Starmer, a British politician who is the leader of the Labour Party, is secretly a member of the Conservative Party. Starmer has been a member of the Labour Party for many years and has consistently supported and advocated for the party's policies and values. It is not uncommon for politicians to have disagreements or differences of opinion within their own party, but it is inaccurate to suggest that Starmer is secretly a member of the Conservative Party.
Are his policies more like the tories or the labour party?
Keir Starmer has consistently supported and advocated for policies that align with the values and principles of the Labour Party. As the leader of the Labour Party, he has outlined a number of policy positions that are consistent with the party's traditional focus on social justice, equality, and the welfare state. Some of the key policy areas that Starmer has focused on include increasing funding for public services such as the National Health Service (NHS), addressing the climate crisis, and supporting workers and small businesses. These policy positions are consistent with the Labour Party's traditional values and are not typically associated with the policies of the Conservative Party.
But what about his position on the nurses' strike?
It is important to note that Keir Starmer has not taken a public position on a specific nurses' strike. It is not uncommon for politicians to avoid taking a position on specific industrial actions, as they may be seen as trying to interfere in the negotiations between the parties involved. However, as the leader of the Labour Party, Starmer has generally supported the rights of workers to engage in industrial action as a means of seeking fair treatment and better working conditions. He has also called for increased funding for the National Health Service (NHS) and for better pay and conditions for healthcare workers, including nurses. It is likely that he would support efforts to improve the working conditions and pay of nurses, but it is not accurate to suggest that he has taken a specific position on a specific nurses' strike.
https://twitter.com/premnsikka/status/1609513735340675074?t=0m3UBoVGW6TaW08HUhEWVQ&s=19
Finding this all a bit interesting. Not to take sides at all but given no major political party agrees - how come these polls don't seem to reflect the this.
Thoughts? (Though I completely get not opening the wound up again for another few years. It's perhaps easy to run a poll but reality is way more complex.)
Labour and tories are too scared of the rightwing press and of losing those brexit voting swing voters to say the unsayable - that brexit is a disaster and we need to go back cap in hand.
Note SNP policy on this is very different. a large part of their popularity IMO
Labour and tories are too scared of the rightwing press and of losing those brexit voting swing voters to say the unsayable
Labour need to get into power first and fix the more important crises such as energy bills, the NHS and social care. Once they've done that they can start talking about our relationship with The EU again. Any discussion about the EU only distracts from other more pressing problems, and Farage et al are already pushing the narrative that pro-EU centrist liberals are more bothered about EU membership than having a functioning health service.
Dazh - cart before horse. the ability to improve those services is to a huge extent reliant on reentering the EU. Rejoining is the one key thing that will actually make a differnce
the ability to improve those services is to a huge extent reliant on reentering the EU.
Sorry but this is nonsense. The crises in the NHS and social care are the simple result of a lack of investment and the total absence of political will to improve them. Yes, we will need immigrant workers to fill the immediate skills gap, but that doesnt require EU membership. If you're seriously suggesting that we can't fix the NHS until we rejoin the EU then all you're doing is handing Farage and his mates their next attack lines.
What I am saying is that not rejoining the EU makes all your aspirations much much harder. Crashing economy, balance of payments, loss of tax revenue, ;lack of EU nurses etc etc
The EU nurses will not come back under visa schemes. Only under FOM
Dazh – cart before horse. the ability to improve those services is to a huge extent reliant on reentering the EU. Rejoining is the one key thing that will actually make a differnce
Simply not the case.
The funding for anything starts with your government.
Crashing economy, balance of payments, loss of tax revenue, ;lack of EU nurses etc etc
All fixable with a currency issue government like the UK has.
Lack of nurses maybe but it's still linked to central government training /funding.
EU is a part of the puzzle but we don't need to be reliant on them for government spend and fixing domestic problems.
A reminder that we still had austerity whilst in the EU.
Yes - and if the government finances are stuffed raising money is harder and more expensive. See The truss budget! Brexit is an economic disaster and without economic recovery all the things you want to do become very much more difficult and there will be no significant economic recovery outside the EU - instead the economic situation of the UK will continue to get worse.
Refusing to countenance rejoining the EU in any form is setting off with both hands tied behind your back.
Yes – and if the government finances are stuffed raising money is harder and more expensive. See The truss budget!
Look I don't want to insult but the government doesn't need to raise money.
It's the monopoly issuer of the £.
It doesn't work how you are alluding to.
The truss budget is an example of the market dictating the way the government works when in effect the government/BoE fixed and can fix anything like that. The truss budget whilst being out of control didn't tank the economy. It just revealed the mess that is a pension system built on a hedging and risky market.
We could simply have a better pension system that doesn't react like this.
All money used to buy bonds is previous money spent by the government into existence.
Don't kid yourself about this.
However, the government of the day does needs to do heavy lifting to fix things. The EU may be part of this somewhere but not for revenue.
Of course it does. Stop with your fantasy economics
Rejoining the EU is the key to stopping our economic decline. Stopping our economic decline is the key to improving public services
I agree that governments can create money but there are limits to doing so without devaluing the currency / driving inflation.
your idea that a government can infinitely create money is pure fantasy
Of course it does. Stop with your fantasy economics
Rejoining the EU is the key to stopping our economic decline. Stopping our economic decline is the key to improving public services
Sigh this is terribly tedious.
The government and the BoE spend money into existence when they spend. That is how the model works.
They spent 450billion in the pandemic without a tax payer involved.
The state bails the private sector every time when it collapses on a large level.
It's you that has the fantasy. Seriously catch up.
I love it when pro-EU ers like yourself don't believe the Tory government over Brexit but jump in to bed with them over the bollocks that is tax and spend, and believe the money has run out. Basically you are giving governments excuses not to fund things.
Once again the BoE/UK government is the monopoly issuer of the the £. Why do you think it needs to be EU for revenue?
The EU nurses will not come back under visa schemes. Only under FOM
Over a third of nurses currently being recruited by the NHS come from outside both the UK and the EU.
So if the UK doesn't want to go through the bother and expense of training UK residents there is clearly an available source from outside the EU.
which is unethical and destroys other countries healthservices
overseas recruitment is a fraction of what it was and recruitment from the EU is virtually stopped.
I agree that governments can create money but there are limits to doing so without devaluing the currency / driving inflation.
How do explain the USD strength to just about every other currency given their huge stimulus (i.e spending 5 trillion) programme then?
It's the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.
Of course there are limits to spending and money creation but not with country in our mess!
Also you don't devalue a currency like this. Fiat currencies aren't backed. They are traded, and that is more of a pride thing than any meaningful real economic use to the UK.
Over a third of nurses currently being recruited by the NHS come from outside both the UK and the EU.
So if the UK doesn’t want to go through the bother and expense of training UK residents there is clearly an available source from outside the EU.
But Brexit has made that much more expensive for all industries to recruit, paying £1000s in visa fees and facing the inevitable delays in processing compared to FOM, is a perfect example of how Brexit is hurting UK industry & the NHS.
Its certainly hurt the scientific research sector in that respect, took a chunk out of the budget in my last last lab but it was the extra delays and red tape that made it worse
still blue passports or something
Of course there are limits to spending and money creation
correct there are. Now please stop pretending there are not
Brexit is hurting UK industry & the NHS.
Its certainly hurt the scientific research sector in that respect, took a chunk out of the budget in my last last lab but it was the extra delays and red tape that made it worse
All I'm suggesting and agree with you, is the the UK government could fix stuff if it wanted to. It's not restricted by lack of pounds.
That's not an EU issue, it's a capitalism issue.
correct there are. Now please stop pretending there are not
No you misunderstand. Money creation is a product of any government with a central bank. Don't confuse Q/E with government spending. Government spending is a normal every day operation. The spending happens first before tax receipts are cleared.
The limitation is not lack of pounds.
The limitation is inflation (driven by too much spending, not the the same as the current inflation.) And full employment.
I know my topic pretty well. So these old arguments that your are throwing at me are well worn and flacid.
The government needs to spend cash, 12 years of Tory austerity has flattened public services - this happend whilst in the EU.
It's a government spending issue not a revenue constrained issue by being out of the EU.
That's the fantasy.
Catch up
https://warrenmosler.com/mmtwhitepaper/
It's a USA paper but directly comparable to the UK. Mosler was a hedge fund manager and figured out government finances form the other side of the fence.
No - the fantasy is that you keep trying to pretend there is no limit to this - and that dire financial circumstances that brexit have caused are irrelevant.
Attempting to fix the UK without at a very minimum getting much closer to the EU is the fantasy
But Brexit has made that much more expensive for all industries to recruit,
So making recruiting fully trained overseas nurses less attractive?
Is the only solution really to find another cheaper source? Or, despite the expense, perhaps to train UK residents?
Sometimes the very cheapest solution isn't necessarily the most acceptable solution, whatever the Tories might claim.
4 years to train a nurse plus another couple of years to set up the increased training places. 7-12 years to train a doctor depending on what type.
Yes proper training and recruitment in the UK is needed but it will not have any impact for a minimum of five years. Meanwhile spain has a glut of nurses who used to come here by the thousands. Now they don't
If you want increased NHS staffing you need to recruit from overseas in the short term. Recruiting ethically from overseas outside of the EU is highly difficult
4 years to train a nurse plus another couple of years to set up the increased training places.
Which doesn't sound any longer than your solution - to rejoin the EU.
Although the obvious difference between my suggestion of training more nurses and yours of rejoining the EU is that my suggestion sounds a lot more feasible and achievable, certainly in the short-term.
Both is needed. Its not an either / or choice. We could have FOM within weeks or months with the political will
We need FOM to gain access to the pool of unemployed EU nurses. We need CU and SM to reverse the economic damage of brexit.
Without a return to the EU we will continue to fall behind economically and we are attempting to reverse the damage with both hands tied behind our backs.
Untill Starmer and labour adopt a return to the EU which a majority in the country are in favour of we will never recover the lost ground and indeed will continue to fall back economically
Recruiting ethically from overseas outside of the EU is highly difficult
Why do we need to recruit from outside the EU? There’s nothing stopping us recruiting Spanish nurses. All we have to do is let them in.
They will not come without FOM. simple as.
Pre brexit we were taking thousands each month. Now its hundreds per year