Forum menu
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?
if they don’t absolutely need to do it today but they’re choosing to do it
Such as?
I see Labour leading the argument here on NHS staffing. Others see them dressing in Tory clothes, because that’s how they see everything Starmer says and does. Sorting out training for NHS staff is nothing to with acting like Tories, and everything to do with addressing the long term staffing of the NHS.
I like the "let's train people here" line, and I hope it happens but the overall message was pitched as pro-brexit and anti-immigration, "no return to freedom of movement" which is yet another commitment abandoned (not just a commitment but an "of course"), and more so "firm rules and a points based system", "no customs union" plus recent anti-independence messaging which is almost word for word Theresa May's line.
The NHS stuff is all great but it's barely sketched out and lacks any real substance- simultaneously "we'll add 7500 med school places in 4 years" is a hard thing to deliver and needs serious thought, but it's also not enough- it doesn't even backfill vacancies and deal with people leaving the profession No discussion of retention that I saw, no mention of the nursing bursary, and only a couple of weeks after he waffled his way through questions about nurses' pay.
I've not seen anything much that couldn't have come from May or Sunak's mouth to be blunt. And the headline-grabbers were absolutely designed to be Tory-adjacent. If they want to lead the argument on NHS staffing it should be the big headline not the afterword. And they should be absolutely smashing down on the fact that this is from year and year of tory deliberate underfunding and neglect, pointing that 100% at Jeremy Hunt. The demographic bomb in GP care has been ignored, the destruction of nursing was not just ignored but deliberate, and the guy that did much of it is chancellor, so that ties Sunak the new boy to all of that historical disaster.
I mean, it's not disastrous- pretty much the opposite, it's more of the same.
pro-brexit and anti-immigration, “no return to freedom of movement” which is yet another commitment abandoned (not just a commitment but an “of course”), and more so “firm rules and a points based system”, “no customs union”
Customs Union, Freedom of Movement, freeing up immigration rules, increasing immigration… absolutely none of that will be in the next Labour election manifesto. If it were, Labour would give the Tories another term by gifting them another 2019 election battle even though Brexit has happened and there is no short term way to reverse any of it. “Labour want to reverse Brexit and open up our borders” is exactly the line the Tories want to be central to their campaign, it’s the only tool they have to distract the public from all their **** ups. Only once 2016 & 2019 are ancient history can Labour go anywhere near selling the benefits of open borders at an election.
Brexit needed to be stopped in 2019, the events that have happened since show that to be true. But fighting the next election on it in England would be foolish. There are seats which can be held that way, and even some that could be won that way, but it would shore up Tory support in key seats and risk them forming another government.
kelvin
Full MemberCustoms Union, Freedom of Movement, freeing up immigration rules, increasing immigration… absolutely none of that will be in the next Labour election manifesto.
Sure. But that's not what's happening now- right now he's choosing to make it a talking point, and a much louder one than the NHS. I don't think it's unfair to say that he's stronger and more proactive on the subjects where he's closer to the tories than he is on the subjects where he's further.
It's not just this interview but if you look at the last couple of weeks they're mostly talking about the things where they're near. And even when there's a strong difference he's still couching it in those terms, coming round to talk about the NHS only after going through agreeing with the tory greatest hits.
I'm not saying create difference there, I'm saying talk about where difference is.
Sure. But that’s not what’s happening now- right now he’s choosing to make it a talking point, and a much louder one than the NHS. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that he’s stronger and more proactive on the subjects where he’s closer to the tories than he is on the subjects where he’s further.
This.
I think he's trying himself up in knots frantically switching around ideas based on whatever the Tory hot potato is.
frantically switching around ideas based on whatever the Tory hot potato is.
Without wanting to stereotype, given the fact that Starmer is a massive football fan with a penchant for football hooligan chic, I reckon he means everything he says on immigration. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’ll play very well for him electorally. I’m surprised he doesn’t show his footy hooligan side more often.
Well, he is 'working class', after all....
I actually went past his house recently. Some friends live not too far from him. It's a very nice area, with lots of very expensive houses.
he’s choosing to make it a talking point
He needs to tell the voters that a vote for Labour at the next election will not bring back FoM, not take us into a custom union, not bring an end to qualified immigration. Because you can be sure that if he doesn’t, then they Tories and their press will put that idea in the minds of voters. He’s being preemptive. He can see the battle lines being drawn ready for an election. Nothing smart in that, everybody can see it, can’t they?
I think he’s tying himself up in knots frantically switching around ideas based on whatever the Tory hot potato is.
I don't think that is fair. I have no doubt that Starmer's strategy is very deliberate and calculating.
I have posted the following a couple of times before and I am doing so again because I feel that it is poignant. It was written just before Starmer became Labour leader by another left-wing barrister who knew Starmer from before he was DPP.
"Starmer’s enthusiasm while DPP for using mundane news events to feed the press with rightwing talking points is a possible concern for Labour members. If such a leader was faced with news of an injustice in the future – the consequence of a change to immigration rules, say, or of a strike in public services – Starmer’s approach to the press as DPP might raise worries that he would not give a principled defence of the victims but would tell the press whatever it wanted to hear".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/16/keir-starmer-past-scrutiny
That was written a couple months before Starmer officially became Labour leader.
I think the claim that Starmer will say whatever the press, ie the right-wing press, wants to hear is correct. EG:
I also think that the following criticism is fair:
He said: "The Tories’ immigration policies are disgusting, anyone with basic sense and decency would be seeking a huge gulf between their own views and those of the Tories, but yet here we have the Labour leader talking about what little difference there is between the parties.
It doesn't appear that Starmer is tying himself up in knots, indeed he appears to be following a strategy which according to a fellow left-wing barrister he has been following for years.
It doesn’t appear that Starmer is tying himself up in knots, indeed he appears to be following a strategy which according to a fellow left-wing barrister he has been following for years.
Okay so the wind changes and Starmer takes a new position without keeping modest principles about what we should vote for?
I'm not following your rationale (other than he was already a right-winger?)
This can be tested based on whatever path the Tories take next.
What about the FBPE brigade that loved a good Corbyn drubbing? What are they going to do now?
@kelvin I read that article before I saw this discussion. Honestly, my first thought was exactly the same as Northwind. He's courting tory voters and playing a very dangerous game of They're All The Same. Same tory isolationism, same BoJoesque hollow promises of greatness. You can't just make changes like that overnight.
With policies like that you bet your arse it'll be another SNP landslide up here. I'd say between him and Dugdale opening her mouth again in the last week it's all but guaranteed. And that's not good for us, our NHS isn't looking much better.
I’m not following your rationale
Not mine but David Renton's. Before Starmer took over from Corbyn as Labour Leader Renton suggested that, based on his behaviour as DPP, he was likely to tell the media whatever they wanted to hear on issues such as public service strikes or immigration, rather than mount a strong defence of those involved.
David Renton's warning has turned out to be remarkably pertinent. If you get the opportunity I would recommend reading the whole article.
Personally I don't believe that Starmer is particularly right-wing so it's not the case that he always has been. For me he represents a now very typical characteristic of modern UK politics - someone who isn't motivated by conviction politics but by a desire for personal fulfilment.
In the case of the legal profession the lure of high office appears to particularly attract them to the Labour Party - they are pretty much guaranteed fast-track progress through the party.
IMO there is little which differentiates Johnson, Sunak, and Starmer, in terms of motivation. It isn't conviction, it isn't money, and it isn't a desire to change the world - on the contrary maintaining the status quo is an important priority for them.
They appear to be driven primarily by a need to establish their place in history. Politics is simply a vehicle.
I have no doubt that today when Starmer says there is little difference between Labour and the Tories on the immigration that he doesn't mean it any more than he meant his 10 socialist pledges which he proudly announced during his leadership campaign.
As David Renton suggests, he will say what he thinks people want to hear. But he is probably no more right-wing than he is left-wing. The important priority for him is to be apolitical and not rock the boat more than necessary.
Tend to agree although I would still rather have a Stamer Labour Party in power than a Sunak Tory party. They may be driven by establishing a place in history but they are still very different people when it comes down to who they truly care about.
Completely and unnecessarily back to front on making the NHS work - just because - tax payers money.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1589689643347243008?s=20&t=UH4ABM25yma3BM1_dWOdOA
Dim wit.
on the contrary maintaining the status quo is an important priority for them.
I'm glad our politicians aren't here to shape the future then! Here's me thinking they could choose a different path.
But he is probably no more right-wing than he is left-wing.
I've not seen him embarking on anything remotely left-wing. I tend to think the status-quo is right-wing.
. They may be driven by establishing a place in history but they are still very different people when it comes down to who they truly care about.
I don't think that is proven in any measurable form.
What Starmer wants personally and what he is able to aim for due to the political situation aren't necessarily the same.
I’ve not seen him embarking on anything remotely left-wing.
They might have been short-lived but his 10 socialist "pledges" were remarkably left-wing.
IMO there is no reason to assume that he says anything other than what he thinks people want to hear. If he currently says stuff which sounds right-wing it doesn't mean that he necessarily believes it, just that he believes people want to hear it.
Although quite why he thinks it is still important to ape the Tories when they are currently so incredibly unpopular, possibly the most unpopular in 200 years, I don't fully understand.
With opinion polls consistently showing the Tories on less than 30% share of the vote, all due to their own incompetence and totally self-inflicted damage, nothing is going to drive them into the arms of voters in a hurry. Not even a Labour leader who offers a radical alternative to the Tories failed policies.
I don’t think that is proven in any measurable form.
Nope, just a gut feeling. Come back in 5 years and see if my feeling is correct I suppose.
Although quite why he thinks it is still important to ape the Tories when they are currently so incredibly unpopular, possibly the most unpopular in 200 years, I don’t fully understand.
Seems to me Starmer is very similar to Andy Burnham in the 2015 leadership election. His instincts are to do left wing(ish) things but his fear of upsetting the wrong people makes him say the opposite. Andy Burnham seems to have learned that lesson so hopefully Starmer will too without having to lose an election. FWIW I think there is far more potential for Starmer to do leftwing things once in power than Tony Blair was ever prepared to do, due mainly to the fact that people have had an extra 25 years to see that neoliberalism doesn't serve their interests.
Starmer's a political chameleon. More than happy to completely change his colours according to the currentn environment. Right now, he's around about a John Major shade of grey. I suspect once Uncle Rupert tells him to prepare for government, he'll become a little more colourful. More a shade of purple than red, though. Things Can Only Get Better.
Pushing against all the right wing crud kicking about currently shouldn't actually be a vote loser - especially economically.
I don't have the Starmer faith that many of you appear to have tucked away - at all.
Especially with the like of Streeting being a confused economic arse head.
Wake me up in 20 years
Starmer’s a political chameleon. More than happy to completely change his colours according to the currentn environment
Then why not change your colours to the demands of a collapsing economic outlook with something substantial?
IMO there is no reason to assume that he says anything other than what he thinks people want to hear. If he currently says stuff which sounds right-wing it doesn’t mean that he necessarily believes it, just that he believes people want to hear it.
I think people want to hear about what they're going to do to fix their livelihoods. That could be top of the narrative.
No need to pretend to be RW.
Nope, just a gut feeling. Come back in 5 years and see if my feeling is correct I suppose.
These days it's all we've got I suppose.
What Starmer wants personally and what he is able to aim for due to the political situation aren’t necessarily the same.
Again I would said the political situation should currently be about livelihoods. I don't see a reason that personal opinion and politics can't align here.
It's just the Tories have changed the narrative away from that to migration - again.
Shift it back!
FWIW I think there is far more potential for Starmer to do leftwing things once in power than Tony Blair was ever prepared to do, due mainly to the fact that people have had an extra 25 years to see that neoliberalism doesn’t serve their interests.
I think he will want to maintain power without upsetting anyone. That keeps him on the current path of tinkering.
I really hope I'm wrong.
The only *hope* with have is things are so bad then it absolutely needs state action.
I hate this cycle of Tories screwing up, selling off the assets, destroying everything and Labour having to do the dirty work to fix it.
The Tory argument has become too robust whilst being the exact opposite of economic truth - at least for the good of the UK as a whole.
The LP talk about the need for 'growth', nothing redistributive. Streeting was reported in the Spectator about the private sector is needed as part of NHS 'reform', advocating for his financial backers. It's pretty clear what their politics are and no government has even been elected on a RW platform then moved to the left, quite the reverse. I would welcome a Labour government but people will still have to fight their corner.
private sector is needed as part of NHS ‘reform’,
Well, it is really. More or less every GP is a privately owned partnership, as is every optician and dentist. lots of the NHS is and always has been privately owned. If they aren't part of any "reforms" then it won't work.
I would welcome a Labour government but people will still have to fight their corner.
Absolutely they will.
More or less every GP is a privately owned partnership, as is every optician and dentist.
That is not what Wes Streeting is talking about - the historical arrangement going back to Nye Bevan which maintains GPs etc as self-employed professionals rather than government paid "civil servants".
As a New Labour Blairite he is talking about profit-motivated healthcare providers having a much greater role in NHS services.
We know the devastating financial costs to the NHS of profit-motivated provisions from the disastrous consequences of PFI