Forum menu
If Labour don’t ALSO aim for short term improvements in NHS waiting lists, then they’ll only get 5 years in government, and no long term plans can be fulfilled. If an incumbent Labour government fight an election where the public expense of being treated on the NHS is still where it is now, or worse, they are sunk.
thjs is absolutly true Private healthcare cannot help significantly tho
"Simon Stevens’s 2017 reforms effectively abolished the internal market in England with establishment of ICS and ICBs. Do some reading"
it really did not remove the excess bureaucracy at all - just created more in your "ICS and ICBs"
"And Scotland saved 10% plus? How is the SNHS doing right now? "
yes - admin costs in Scotland last time I looked were 10% of budget, Englands 20%
Scottish NHS is distinctly better than Englands. No strikes for a start off. Far from good but better
Private healthcare cannot help significantly tho
Agreed. Marginal gains at best. Lots of those will be needed for any short term turnaround. None should be ruled out based on preferred ideology (I probably share yours here).
The big stuff (funding local government to provide more direct social care for example) is all long term, for multiple Parliaments.
Lots of those will be needed for any short term turnaround.
That's not what will happen. That's not where Streeting will go with this. The big stuff will never happen whilst we ceed to these little Labour crumbs of fake hope.
None should be ruled out based on preferred ideology (I probably share yours here).
The preferred capitalist ideology is already in play. And that's what failure of privatisaiton looks like. But no matter how bad things get we have Labour lining up to suppport more marketisation of things that could be so much better.
There is a supply side problem and that is the makings of the incorrect ideology.
How much more should fail before we accept the model is wrong?
The NHS as a “mixed economy” is here to stay.
And that is not a fact at all. It could go either way depending on the administration of the day.
Huff post:
Keir Starmer has accused the Tories of planning to spend billions of pounds on tax cuts so there is no money left for an incoming Labour government
Lies and more lies.
Starmer should know there is no bank account at the BoE or the Treasury that saves money up for the government to spend from tax receipts.
The Tories are bad enough without setting precedent to cripple the country with lies about spending.
He can check out the the mechanism if he wants - the government gets a credit to spend by way of the consolidated fund at the BoE - every time it needs any amount of money.
From parliament.uk
The Consolidated Fund is the Government's general bank account at the Bank of England. Payments from this account must be authorised in advance by the House of Commons. The Government presents its 'requests' to use this money in the form of Consolidated Fund Bills
What's more they're always passed.
Starmer should know there is no bank account at the BoE or the Treasury that saves money up for the government to spend from tax receipts.
No one said there was. But pretending that levels and types of tax revenue does not affect what the government can do isn't honest. Using language people understand is basic politics. Most voters simply are not economists, and short hand will be used. There is a choice to be made between tax cuts for the rich and public spending.
It's pretty obvious the Conservatives are setting a trap here, forcing Labour to admit they will raise taxes after an election... [or more likely to announce that they will not implement specific tax cuts proposed by the Tories, but it'll be painted by the incumbents and in the press as raising taxes]. I suspect Labour will end up promising their own "tax cuts" to counter this... by raising thresholds... paired with increasing taxes elsewhere. Any incoming government will likely end up increasing the overall tax take, while seeking to reduce personal taxation for some. It's who get's the hit, and who gets the help, that'll form the real battle over taxation come an election.
https://twitter.com/implausibleblog/status/1750612359251460413?t=-OL2hqjUIn4v8A9GWmw4IQ&s=1
Absolutely terrible journalism.
The institutional lies that surround this are so so much bigger than the lies called out over Brexit.
Even at a basic level are these people totally stupid? Where do they think money comes from? The private sector counterfeiting?
We are crippled into believing we can't have anything because of this one lie and I knew it would fall on Labour who clearly weren't going to push back on a Neoliberal narrative.
The establishment wants you to suffer at the expense of the top asset holders.
Starmer commenting on social media clips of people being shot in Gaza (specifically guy with a white surrender flag clip) - and having two different view points about civilians deaths depending if it was Ukraine or Gaza.
https://twitter.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1750605469196914766?t=jTE9h9j5S4HjWOEIGKIxuA&s=19
But the again he's not along - plenty of agro-centrists seem to enjoy this sort of justification. Reminds of the whole WMD exceptionalism.
Starmer is a ****ing spineless gibbon
He is getting worse by the week. Hope the election is not pushed too far out as god knows how crap he will be by September.
Let's play a game, STW or Qanon?
Calm down, it's all part of The Plan, everyone with any sense knows what he REALLY means.
Bit unfair on the gibbon, he always looks like a rabbit in the headlights.
The level of intolerance in the Labour Party is now truly scary imo, and not least because in a few months time it will be the party of government.
A Labour MP now gets suspended for saying:
there was an ‘“international duty” to remember the victims of the Holocaust, as well as “more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and now Gaza”.
Which are precisely the sort of sentiments which you would expect any political party with a commitment to compassion, humanity, and peace, to support.
On the other hand a Labour Party member who claims that a far-right racist government has the right to cut off water supplies to desperate and dying civilians, in blatant violation of international law, looks to become prime minister in a few months time.
British politics really is in the gutter.
Yeah, that above. I don’t know what we get out of supporting Israel, it’s got a highly corrupt leadership, openly racist and genocidal members of government that is totally odds with most liberal western values, openly intimidates and lobbys western representives. It’s not an ally it’s a liability in its current form, I have no idea what’s he’s thinking?
Its a result of all the fake nonsense about antisemitism. That nonsense has achieved its aim - made it impossible for anyone in the labour party to criticise Israel for any reason.
I would guess that her general political profile would be to the left of centre, and therefore not in line with the mandates being dictated by central office. She is probably quite distraught that her comments could be taken as antisemitism, which is why this ritual public humiliation as punishment for anyone who speaks out against Israeli's atrocities is so affective.
Surely the whole point of holocaust day is to look at the moment in history and make sure it should never happen again, not to create a hierarchy of atrocity with which nothing else is seen as being so bad and can therefore be brushed under the carpet.
Any chance of a campaign to get Labour voters to vote green or Lib Dem in Karmer's constituency and Green to vote Labour in Kate Osamor's contituency.
I might get a vote in a UK election for the first time ever if promises are kept. Not having a fixed abode and poll tax got in the way of registering when I lived in the UK, I didn't have a residence to leave when I left and lost rights about 20 years ago anyhow. I'd like someone I could vote for with conviction, Karmer isn't that person, Kate Osamor might be.
Israel have always played the anti-semite card and continue to do so. The UK don't seem to want to challenge that. Corbyn of course did and he appeared to be right didn't he but look what happened there.
Wonder what the UK support of Israel is like across the voters?
Wonder what the UK support of Israel is like across the voters?
Not as strong as Starmer's support it would appear. According to a YouGov poll 76% supported an immediate ceasefire and only 8% were opposed.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1715027375354749384
I really can't get my head round the fact that the Labour Party has suspended an MP for saying that the slaughter of civilians, mostly women and children, is genocide, a claim which the International Court of Justice a few days ago described as "plausible".
They suspended her because she knew exactly what she was doing releasing that statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, she is not a fan of the labour leadership and like others, trying to bring this issue to the fore again and make Starmer take action.
trying to bring this issue to the fore again and make Starmer take action.
She forced Starmer to take action? And what was this issue that she was trying to bring "to the fore again" - you don't think people were speaking about what is currently happening in Gaza?
Of course she knew exactly what she was saying when she said there was an international duty to remember the victims of the Holocaust, as well as “more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and now Gaza”. You make it sound as if it was a really terrible thing to say which deserves suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party.
She didn't say it on International Holocaust Memorial Day btw, she said it the day before to remind everyone of the importance of remembering the Holocaust.
And it is of course extremely important to remember, which is why I posted a reminder on STW - I don't think you did argee.
Ah, I have just discovered why Starmer probably felt that he should suspend another black female MP committed to fighting racism, because the Mail on Sunday pretty much told him to do so in their latest editorial:
I look forward to the current Daily Mail influenced Prime Minister being replaced in a few months time by another Daily Mail influenced Prime Minister.
*agrees with Ernie, feels dirty for agreeing with Ernie, but sometimes Ernie is right* 😉
Edit: all you posts on this page, Ernie.
They suspended her because she knew exactly what she was doing releasing that statement on Holocaust Memorial Day, she is not a fan of the labour leadership and like others, trying to bring this issue to the fore again and make Starmer take action.<br /><br />
Yet more revisionism. Even the Guardian article linked to contradicts itself:<br /><br />'The Labour MP Kate Osamor has had the whip suspended while she is investigated for saying Gaza should be remembered as a genocide on Holocaust Memorial Day.
The MP for Edmonton in north London is due to meet party whips on Monday after issuing an apology over the message she sent on the eve of the day marking the murder of 6 million Jews during the second world war."<br />
So the facts are that she didn't make the comment on Holocaust Memorial Day.
It is vital that the atrocities committed by the Nazis be remembered, but it is also vital that any memorial also commemorate the deaths of all the Roma, Sinti, Slavs, people with disabilities, those with dissenting political opinions etc. By far the largest group murdered were of course Jews, but the term 'holocaust' should not be used simply to involve one group alone. It was a crime against all of Humanity. So I can't see how Kate Osamor's comments were in any way 'offensive'. I think what is far more offensive to the current Labour leadership, is that Osamor is a Black woman who dares to speak out against the actions of a fascistic regime, one which the leadership has clearly allied itself with. But with the failure to address the disgusting abuse of Diane Abbot and other Labour MPs of colour, and Starmer's failure to acknowledge the Forde report, this is yet another example of how this leadership really isn't committed to traditional Labour values of fighting racism and fascism. Yet another reason why I will not be voting for this party under its current leadership.
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1750916668518285685?t=qRAjx_dDbWhOfGFD2QT_nQ&s=19
Can a senior MP for the Labour party really be this simple and cram so much stupidity into one tweet?
The financial sector and firepower in one sentence?
Let's be clear the financial sector is a support service and wealth extractor.
How about the real fire power of the state that can issue its own currency - particularly on things of desperate need - that will actually generate the growth they want.
Reeves is full of second-hand 90s Tory guff - it's this sorted of reheated deregulation language that helped create the chaos of the last Labour government - courting the nonsense of wealth creation by the private sector.
Can't believe she's going with this.
(Well I can.)
There are things wrong with our country which need fixing. This is the wrong place to look and more evidence of an economically very right-wing Labour party - that also appears to have few new ideas.
She really is is ****ing awful. Guessing she is in a very safe Labour seat unfortunately.
I find it fascinating where the Tories dare go Labour dare follow.
Another day another Streeting being a ****.
https://twitter.com/SkyPoliticsHub/status/1752059704233124087?s=20
Labour front bench is shaping up to be the most terrible of Christmas presents.
She really is is **** awful. Guessing she is in a very safe Labour seat unfortunately.
Leeds West - looks to be. She's been there a while too.
Well as much miss I cannot look at David Cameron he seems to have been the catalyst for Streeting and co to flip their verbal script on Gaza.
Last week.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1750880543141417340?t=RhdXSyeEgJyjxgswuXiHDQ&s=19
So this week Streeting and others:
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1752402690397577663?t=XTfiwPJ0pl7iIN62jE6Vcg&s=19
Oct 23
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1719297557442986189?t=Wlog_9oZZ6JPHeDYaRPZMg&s=19
Now
https://twitter.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1752597926621196435?t=9H5-01U39spD0OEHiM_QZA&s=19
“The cap on bankers’ bonuses was bought in in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and that was the right thing to do to rebuild the public finances,” she told the BBC. “But that has gone now and we don’t have any intention of bringing that back"
I don't think Reeves even checks what's she's said before. It's being made up on the spot. Bankers bonuses don't affect the public finances but do create distributional problems with wealth especially as we are still in a cost of living crisis. And there's the reliance on a wealth extracter to apparently generate value. Total dumb ass economics, especially when you read about the deliberate underfunding of the NHS.
You seen - with the Tories being absurd it leaves little space to notice how totally and utterly reckless Labour are being.
If only the screaming and screeching of the Sunak thread which looks like it will be long gone soon - was transferred to its pathetic likely replacement then we might make critical progress.
I despaired when I heard that this morning. It's not as if this is even controversial to any but 0.001% of the population. I don't know the mechanics of it and I'm sure it was a fairly easy thing to get around if you're in that world so it's probably an irrelevant rule/law but the "optics" of this are terrible.
Who's side are they on?
Bankers bonuses don’t affect the public finances
Actually they should have done, negatively (in the short term anyway).
The point was to try and put the bankers off risky short term behaviour for personal profit.
Its effectiveness can be debated since it just got turned into higher salaries.
That is a spectacular U-turn rone, and over just three months, even by the U-turning standards of Starmer's "New Labour on steroids".
And Reeves is not stupid enough to believe that bankers bonuses affect public finances so her comment concerning the need to "rebuild the public finances" was obviously said without thinking.
I guess that when you constantly lie you will occasionally say things that very obviously make no sense at all.
Actually they should have done, negatively (in the short term anyway>The point was to try and put the bankers off risky short term behaviour for personal profit
For clarity they don't affect the government's capacity to spend.
That's all I meant - for sure there are loads of other problems associated with them.
Rachel Reeves is getting me down currently - she's says nothing progressive and dresses it all up in fake economic language.
I tried to get on LBC the other day to challenge her on a few things.
No beuno.
The point was to try and put the bankers off risky short term behaviour for personal profit.
Its effectiveness can be debated since it just got turned into higher salaries.
As you say, it wasn't about keeping pay low, it was about not rewarding risk... and it is still needed, and really needs to be kept in line with other financial hubs to prevent a race to the bottom... a race we should have been seeking to avoid by keeping our bonus caps in line with most of Europe, and pushing for the USA and European outliers to match the caps. Perhaps Reeves thinks we're now past the point where we can bring caps back without triggering an exodus... if so, I hope (and think) she's wrong, and the caps should return... she risks sending the wrong signal to those that prefer greater risk taking (a risk that we then all take on as a country, as history has shown).
Who’s side are they on?
Rachel Reeves used to work for the Bank of England. Who's side do you think she's on?
I'm just catching PMQs and the argument is ludicrous.
I don't mind Starmer criticising mortgage rates - if Labour were likely to offer solutions any different to the Tories.
Both parties subscribe to the idea of BoEs independence farce - so what exactly would Labour do?
Neither party is will to instruct the BoE to reduce rates which would be at least half of a solution. (They could do this.)
And yet again interest rates haven't been going up since the Truss budget. It's a lie.
Labour don't need to lie to make a point.
They are both 3rd rate Neoliberals supporting the same system. Sunak just took Reeves to task over the cap too.
This is what comes of arguing Tory narrative.
Labour don’t need to lie to make a point.
I think all labour are doing is lying and nothing else. Rachel Reeves is a classic example. She worked as an economist at the Bank of England. No one can tell me that she doesn't know how the system works. That it requires govt investment/spending to drive economic activity and growth and then taxes are levied to control inflation. Yet in public she says the direct opposite, pretending that growth is driven by the private sector (presumably with magic money that it finds down the back of the sofa) and taxes levied on that growth then fund public spending.
Either she was completely incompetent at her job, or she's not telling the truth. My strong suspicion is that behind closed doors the business barons and bankers have told them that they will tolerate more spending and taxes in order to fix things and generate growth, as long as labour do their bit to perpetuate the myth that the free market enables it rather than it being the result of govt activism. Labour will then hide that spending using various accounting tricks and PR misdirection, and then claim they were right when growth improves. It's a win-win - Labour win power, the economy improves, and the business and financial establishment remain unhindered by govt.
Labour will then hide that spending using various accounting tricks and PR misdirection, and then claim they were right when growth improves. It’s a win-win – Labour win power, the economy improves, and the business and financial establishment remain unhindered by govt.
I'm not totally sold on that - but I'm not totally against the logic either.
I mean - it would be simpler just to have a plan - a progressive plan. Someone has to ultimately change the narrative otherwise it's just another Tory shit-show with a bit less shit.
They are going to want to keep power too so that to me means they will always be challenged with anything that is remotely in need of proper investment. The words 'borrowing' and 'national debt' need challenging for this reason.
Easier just to tell the truth - and I'm not so sure she knows how things work - I mean FFS the Governer of the BoE has a history degree. They just operate as puppet to the goverment. The BoE exist to make the government's life easier. There's no pragmatic reason currently for high interest rates as you very well know. The BoE has no current paper linking high-interest rates as a solution to high inflation for instance; but they do these daft things because they've always done them - not because there has been any new evidential modelling. In fact 9 times out of 10 - inflation is a supply problem. It's very rarely attributed to money supply - and I know lots of you get this.
It's the exact opposite of pragmatism.
The only thing that I know of that validates how the monetary system really works from the BoE's perspective - is the guys that did the 'Accounting Model of the UK Exchequer' paper (i.e self-financing state) - did a presentation to some BoE bigwigs, and they didn't disagree with its contents. Hell yeah. But basically didn't say much about it either.
Ultimately it's going to come down to - do we let the World burn just because someone made up the fact we don't have any money left (Hey we own the BoE - the source of moneyness) but apparently we need the private sector to counterfeit wealth into existence!
It's the most bizaree thing I've every countered. And Reeves is a bad 'un.
That it requires govt investment/spending to drive economic activity and growth and then taxes are levied to control inflation. Yet in public she says the direct opposite, pretending that growth is driven by the private sector (presumably with magic money that it finds down the back of the sofa) and taxes levied on that growth then fund public spending
You make my point - it's damn clear when you use the former part of your logic.
All the trouble starts when you start to explain it from a the perspective of a phoney Capitalist who wants to contort the hell out of what is a very logical system where the £ is the way the government provisions itself.
Framed easily - money has to be spent into existence by the currency issuer before you can pay your taxes !
I mean you can't borrow something until it has been created can you? So the nonsense of borrowing is even more stupid.
I mean – it would be simpler just to have a plan – a progressive plan.
It would, yes. But the finance and business establishment won't like that, because it will change the narrative that the free market is king and it'll be the thin end of the wedge leading us back to state ownership, redistribution and regulated capital markets. Better for them to perpetuate the myth whilst allowing a labour govt to quietly fix the economy and public services. It's a trap really, because Labour will go along with it, and when they succeed* the narrative will then be that all this stuff is fixable without massive govt spending, laying the ground for the privatisation of the crown jewels.
*And they will succeed, because things are so f**** that they can't really fail. When you're at the bottom there's only one direction to go.
Well when you in factor in the lag on economic metrics and the devastation we have in public services, plus the climate crisis - I don't think Labour will get anywhere near - especially based on how they're talking.
I think there's possibly still the late problems of interest rates to unfold yet with fixed mortgages expiring. (Yep the stock market has been doing fine.)
Labour would have to be fully on board with huge investment to even get close to doing anything good in the next 5 years.
I'd say we're not at the bottom.
The UK hasn't done what Biden has done with an economic stimulus - and the USA has managed to do well with growth because of this, and yet Trump is still looking good.
I dunno - I'm way past predictions but if Labour don't sort their attitude out within the first 100 days - god knows what comes next.
You're more positive than me Daz!
When someone on the right of Labour thinks Labour aren't being progressive enough.
Normally McTernan would send me in a spin but he's pointing out the obvious here.
Labour should fight back politically. It has to win the hearts of the voters as well as their minds. You do that by standing for something and showing voters you will stick to it. Not by running from everything. Great parties have great purposes and hewing to Tory spending rules isn’t a great purpose.
You’re more positive than me Daz!
I wouldn't go as far as positive! I think mostly I'm grasping at straws to explain what on the surface looks inexplicable. I get the need to not scare off moderate voters and reassure the business community, but Reeves is going way beyond that. If Labour really does stick to what they're saying and continue tory austerity then they'll have lost my vote forever. I'm in an ultra-marginal and will be voting for the labour candidate (mostly cos he's on one of the cycling whatsapp groups I'm on!) but I'll be making it clear to him what everyone expects, and it's not this.