Forum menu
Proof of whther his strategy is any good will come in the next GE.
And on day 2?
A bit of fun… Telegraph headline…
I’m sure you’ll find similar headlines for when Johnson, Truss and Sunak wore fatigues. 🤪
And don’t forget Starmer! They keep him informed, he knows loads of damning stuff about how the Tories have screwed the economy, far beyond what us mere mortals know, but he just can’t tell us! 😆
No, that would be internal tory party information you'd be talking about, i'm on about a member of parliament having access to information within government, and in terms of security and other things, the opposition leader and specific shadow cabinet members being privy to briefings and so on.
The mindset you have, you seem to think that only tory MPs have access to government information, forgetting that almost everything goes through parliamentary approvals, committees, votes, etc, etc, so information is available for those who require it.
You seem to have forgotten what you said argee, which was this:
Maybe the opposition have more information on the state of the nation and the finances behind it than people on an internet forum?
The opposition do not have more information concerning the nation's finances than is available to the public.
And the idea that the nation's finances are actually worse than is public knowledge, and Starmer knows this but like the Tories wants to keep it a secret, is patently ridiculous.
He would of course be using it to attack the current Tory government.
The reason Starmer is reigning on previous commitments has obviously nothing to do with him having secret information about the dire state of the UK economy.
If anything Starmer is of course more likely to exaggerate how bad things are under the current government, not keeping it a secret.
So no, he very clearly does not have more information.
"Labour warned against ‘dancing to Tory tune’ by offshoring asylum claims"
Be great if the Tories copied Labour on ideas for once.... If there were any ideas.
https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1741081367440408683?t=QtrtYS6Iy2N46mgd21zxMQ&s=19
Imagine what this unruly tit is going to be like once in power.
His tweet is a total sham, designed to obfuscate.
Hopefully for you we’ll get another 5 years of the tories then.
This is a terrible argument.
Wishing for a more progressive Labour party = wanting Tories to be in power.
Don't be so short-sighted.
Labour may not be the the Tories but they're damn well Conservative.
This could be a legitimate point. The NHS is able to collect data like almost no other organisation. This data is very valuable to people who want to develop treatments. So, we have the data, we can sell it to them (anonymised, of course), they can then develop treatments that we need to cure our illnesses, and we can buy them back at a discount. I would call that a win/win/win.
IF that's what ends up happening.
So, we have the data, we can sell it to them (anonymised, of course
Problem is anonymisation whilst remaining useful is very, very hard verging on impossible.
On St Starmer Cruddas seems to becoming less of a fan
Ok, so they mis-spell Labour.
This could be a legitimate point. The NHS is able to collect data like almost no other organisation. This data is very valuable to people who want to develop treatments.
I recently received a letter from StJames, Leeds giving me the opportunity to refuse permission for them to share my data with the "Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Flatiron Health UK Cancer Data Partnership" for this very purpose.
Putting anything of this magnitude out to the private sector and buying back is total capitalist nonsense.
The same labour pool and resources are available to the public sector to invest.
We've seen where this ends.
This is what you get when twerps such as Streeting don't recognise the government can afford what is available.
Streeting hasn't got a clue about value or he'd be trumping up investment by the state.
Besides, most of the ground breaking science comes from the state in the first place.
Streeting's aim is the line the pockets of shareholders because that's how he sees his model whilst pretending the NHS is not for sale.
(I totally get suppliers exist in the private sector to buy from - that's good but what's he's talking about here is just unnecessary because the State is the innovator and researcher with big pockets.)
He simply doesn't want to talk about NHS investment in any substantial way.
If Starmer fails to deliver on wages/cost of living, the NHS, housing and rents, as Cruddas points out it could mean an implosion of the LP and the door will be left wide open for rightwing populists. You've only to look at Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Hungary to see the direction of travel.
Putting anything of this magnitude out to the private sector and buying back is total capitalist nonsense.
How do you think most drug development works now?
I'm not saying it's necessarily optimal but it's pharma/biotech that has the international scope and massively outspends govt on R&D generally in the UK, never mind on development of new drugs, diagnostics, devices etc. And it's the NHS that buys the stuff. Govt's job is to regulate and otherwise set the environment (address areas of market failure, international pandemics etc) and the NHS's to negotiate a good price.
Obv data to drive the above is from clinical trials and related studies but it's not v different in principle. It's more the 'how' than the 'what' that's the issue (and fwiw I think Streeting does have a lot to learn).
Rone's point was not about drug developement but the wholesale selling of our data to external (to this country) entities whose data security is demonsatrably porous.
Testing data is a very different beast to health data on everything, it is quite narrowly focussed and generated by the trials. Next thing AIG will be refusing insurance because they have drawn a conclusion, that may not be correct, from a large tranche of data.
People's ability to travel will be restricted, you can't come in here you've had hepatitis, you're using tramadol and you have had a sex change. Not ideal if it's your family affected.
Business money making is down to taking risks not safety. If you're being safe you deserve only minimal profits from our data.
It was an analogy, but research data for commercial studies can be pretty extensive and certainly relevant to insurance and travel etc.
The companies which fund these studies are international, and generally we want their investment, expertise and innovation, and products here. But they are no angels, they need to make money and will go as close as they can to whatever regulatory lines are enforced. That's the analogy with private sector use of health data. There's folks on here who know a lot about this but are unlikely to come near this messed up thread.
People’s ability to travel will be restricted, you can’t come in here you’ve had hepatitis,
Hang on. How would they know what I've had? How would they link a random 46 year old white male with molgrips of STW? Insurance companies have to.operate above board, if someone dodgy is able to data mine and somehow link the two together, would an insurance company be able to deny coverage based on that?
I'm not saying that would never happen, I'm saying that with proper regulation we do have a valuable source of data that companies might need and that might save your or my life one day. Don't just say 'private bad'. Now I personally don't like private enterprise in healthcare but we are where we are, and we should be able to make the best of it. Problem is that requires competent government which is in short supply.
So what's the 'take home' from all of this..?
Labour are a bunch of arse holes, and so are the tories.
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I'll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
If Starmer fails to deliver
I'm sure you meant to say when Starmer fails to deliver?
The take - for me is the adherence to a failed system by the three major parties.
There's plenty of evidence that we could make things better but it appears no matter how bad it gets - no one really wants to change much.
Starmer pratting around with a 10 year old version of Conservatism will simply help shift all parties to the right.
It's also pretty obvious to me on the back of Covid that the state is the enabler for change. The private sector can help deliver it of course but the change has to start with the intention of removing profit making middle-men from the most crucial of our services.
People simply want to believe reform and competence are the conduit but we're a long way from that.
It's does stagger me that if politics was an actual science (with measurable outcomes better than made up inflationary targets) we would have abandoned this model years ago.
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I’ll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
What is really the difference between Starmers Labour and the Liberal Democrats? Seeing that difference is smaller than ever then maybe vote for Starmers Labour so you get something closer to you want as the government rather than getting nothing by voting Liberal Democrat?
Voting is a massive compromise so you can only ever vote for the closest thing anyway. I am most closely aligned to Green Party but in my case there is little compromise as where I live the Tory will still get 50% even with the tories overall piss poor ratings
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I’ll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
It's not for me to try to change your philosophical alignment, just that if you have a chance to vote out a Tory MP please take it (I'd vote Lib to do this). And ignore those on here trying to tell you this is pointless.
"Change my mind."
You honestly think the Tories and Labour are the same? If so, your mind cannot be changed. I am also more closely aligned to the LD but will always vote tactically if required.
They didn't say they were the same, just that they are both a bunch of arseholes. I find it difficult to disagree until proven otherwise.
Come the election, your vote goes towards deciding who is your MP. Talk to both the Tory candidate and their leading opponent (Labour or otherwise) in person. Ask them some searching questions. Then decide if they really are both arseholes and who you’d rather represent you in parliament.
It’s easy for me, the current Conservative MP is a grade A arsehole who’s blocked me for asking very simple polite questions, where as the Labour candidate has come across as decent, measured and considerate in my dealings with him.
Talk to the candidates, and then decide.
I honestly couldn't tell you who the local Tory and Labour MP hopefuls are. The MSP aspirants are arseholes across the spectrum Tory (current councillor), Labour (Katy Clark, the ex-MP for the area who did **** all for anyone during her tenure) & Green (couldn't even get elected as a councillor and just a generally nasty shit) for sure, the rest are also-rans or just not worth bothering about.
But to address your actual point, a better class of arsehole doesn't negate the fact they are one in the first place. Frankly at this point SKS can promise what he likes and I have absolutely no confidence in him even attempting to deliver any of it. So you're essentially voting for the least worst option, and people wonder why people become disillusioned and apathetic...
As someone who is more philosophically aligned to the Liberal Democrats, I’ll still vote Liberal Democrat?
Change my mind.
Can anyone explain to me what the philosophical alignment of the LibDems is?
I always assumed it was to position themselves somewhere between Labour and Tory philosophies so that if neither party was able to get an outright majority they could slip in without being too awkward and get themselves some of those nice government jobs.
So their philosophical alignment currently lies somewhere between the 2014 Tories and 2014 UKIP.
If that's where you feel your philosophical alignment is then all I can say is that's not something I'd feel proud of declaring but you do you.
Can anyone explain to me what the philosophical alignment of the LibDems is?
I think they're very close to the Conservatives actually. Market led pretenders. Perhaps without the scowling hatred of migrants. But equally happy to plunder their labour too.
But, who knows these days as Labour have shifted towards that direction - leaving 3 parties all wasting our time. You're still talking heavy reliance on the market to deliver solutions from the Lib Dems. I don't consider them a party in the a actual center at all really. Be interesting to see if they reinvent themselves. There's clearly room for some Nationalisation ideas somewhere.
I suppose come the general election we will get a clearer view.
But to address your actual point, a better class of arsehole doesn’t negate the fact they are one in the first place.
That wasn’t my point. My point was to actually engage with your candidates. One might well not be an arsehole at all. Which is what I have found of most MPs and candidates I have dealt with, including Conservatives. Not true of our current Tory MP, or those in nearby constituencies. Find out who your candidates are and talk to them. Use your nose. Don’t condemn people you can’t be bothered to deal with… they are your representatives in parliament, or want to be… so engage with them before dismissing them.
So you’re essentially voting for the least worst option
And, FWIW, I actually think SKS is still the worst option in the longer term. The sooner a genuine alternative to Tory and Tory-lite is on offer, the better it will be for the country as a whole. That alternative will only come about when Labour gets its collective shit together and that will be long delayed in the event of a SKS victory.
They have already nailed their colours to the mast.
Tory boy has been an absolute nobody until about 6 months ago and unsurprisingly announced his candidacy a few months later. Usually found being a knob on Facebook and making a public spectacle of himself by noising up the incumbents.
Clark was the MP for several years, absolutely loathed Hunterston power station (one of the only major employers in the area) and did absolutely nothing to advocate for workers when the NI changes were pushed through for those on contracted out pensions. Disappeared off to be Corbyns secretary and now expects everyone to have forgotten her track record. Industry now in an even worse state than when she was in office.
Green arse likes to be a knob on Facebook, regularly gets nasty with anyone who doesn't agree with him and the local NIMBY fraternity. Frankly I think he's about about as green as the Great Gonzo and just uses it as a vehicle to stifle development in the already zoned industrial areas to protect house prices. Last seen harassing Asian mussel pickers and chasing them off the beach.
I don't need to speak to them to know they're absolute throbbers, as I said they've done a good job of making that very clear.
"And, FWIW, I actually think SKS is still the worst option in the longer term. The sooner a genuine alternative to Tory and Tory-lite is on offer, the better it will be for the country as a whole. That alternative will only come about when Labour gets its collective shit together and that will be long delayed in the event of a SKS victory."
That's an interesting perspective, which I can understand and appreciate. However, I don't read it that way at all. I'd predict that if Labour don't win this year, both parties will shift further right.
You’re talking about MSP candidates Squirrelking? I was talking about the UK general election. Considering that the Scottish government is unlikely to be a Tory one, and the voting system is different, none of my points apply. Vote for whoever you wish. At the UK general election, access the two front runners (the candidates) and vote for who you prefer. You could be unlucky, and both are arseholes… but in most seats I’ve looked at that’s simply not the case, and definitely isn’t the case for me, luckily.
As for Scotroutes hoping for a Conservative win to teach the opposition parties a lesson… dream on. The UK is ****ed if the Tories can still win from their current position, and that means all of the UK.
Yeah that's MSP's but tbh it makes no difference either way right now, our MP and MSP are spouses. Labour isn't even fielding known candidates locally, straight from the lib dems playbook and destined to go just as well.
Hang on. How would they know what I’ve had?
Busy yesterday but see that bit where I pointed out that those recieving the data are porous.Do you honestly think that US based companies handling our data are going to abide by our rules?
As a bit of a demonstration, have a look how many times US corporations can't get dismissing workers based here and going to an office in UK correct. That shows exactly how much coporate America understands and applies our practices in a lawful manner.
The UK is ****ed if the Tories can still win from their current position, and that means all of the UK.
Just the mere thought makes me shudder. They would basically go forward with their madness with utter impunity. Another 5 years of accelerated carnage from these shits and I'm not sure there will be much of a society left to salvage.
Can anyone explain to me what the philosophical alignment of the LibDems is?
Traditionally it was a liberal party so a mixed/freeish market policy but with relative strong welfare policies as well as civil rights protections.
In terms of relations to other parties its more than the others, at various times, have stepped into the libdem alignment to some degree.
For example under Thatcherism the tories (and then new labour) diveed onto the free market side of things but went far further than the libdems (at least until the orange book loonies got in - funded by one of the gbeebies sponsors).
They are the party that most of the self announced "moderates" and "centrists" should probably belong to. However since despite fantasies otherwise they are a long, long way from being the silent majority its best to try and drag the other parties onto their turf and hope those parties members dont notice the switch.
So I would say your reading of their position is probably wrong although it is hard to tell with the current leadership and its invisibility cloak.
As with labour there can be a disconnect between the members and the leadership especially, as above, under the orange book lot.
The sooner a genuine alternative to Tory and Tory-lite is on offer, the better it will be for the country as a whole.
Any such thing will be skewered with the press as it is at the moment - see Corbyn, Kinnock, Foot.
Exactly - Corbyn offered a better alternative and look what happened. Okay he was useless in ways that allowed the attacks from Media/Tory party but the alternative was there for people to take but they seemed more interested in getting Brexit done if I remember...
Do we think the MSM is still as influential as it was? There must be a significant chunk of people who've realised that they've been had over Brexit and Corbyn and AS.
It's like Beergate has been forgotten; front page day after day about nothing (Starmer&Rayner played that well, promising to resign and taking the wind out of the papers attacking them). If they can hit Starmer, they will. On anything. Like Miliband's dad, or how he eats a sandwich... if they get the chance, they'll take the Labour leader down.
Do we think the MSM is still as influential as it was?
It will always be used as an excuse, by both the right and the left of the Labour Party, in an attempt to explain electoral failure.
And it is about as useful as claiming that the Tories always lie.