The UK political parties - what's going on?? thread.

PK99

Member
Is that privatisation?

Using private hospitals' capacity to do elective procedures like hip replacements isn't new and, if the price is right, seems a reasonable way to get waiting lists over the hump.

I had an ENT appointment in lockdown with an NHS consultant at Parkside private hospital in Wimbledon. Followed by MRI Scan also at Parkside. All under NHS.
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
Private healthcare is not going to go away, and there is no reason why it should have to. The NHS has to live alongside private heathcare and there will inevitably be crossing of borders, which can be controlled and used to benefit the NHS and is not the same as privatisation of the NHS, despite the headlines from some quarters.

Despite the heady and premature dreams of a "transformational" Labour government of just a couple of years ago, there will be no revolution in this under any future Labour government, whether we have a Corbyn or Starmer clone in charge of the party. Instead we would have gradual changes in the service. Evolution instead of revolution ..... until it was the Tories turn to get back into power and reverse gear again. That is how things work in this country of such limited political vision that it can only have one of two governments (mostly right wing).

The country will not go for a far left government because, although there are too many disadvantaged people, the majority are quite comfortable in their houses with cars, big TV's, holidays overseas.

Because the electorate see the only alternative to Tory being Labour there will be a continued battle within Labour for control of that party because neither the centre left or far left have the confidence to put their money where their mouth is and start a party that closer reflects their politics.

We have some on here who say they can never vote for Tory, or LD, or a Labour party that does not meet their ideals, so where do they put their vote in a GE?

Meanwhile we keep getting Tory governments.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post, but sometimes my cynicism gets the better of me, having seen this debate continue for so long over the decades I have been able to vote. :sad:
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
The country will not go for a far left government because, although there are too many disadvantaged people, the majority are quite comfortable in their houses with cars, big TV's, holidays overseas.
I too have been extremely cynical for much of my life, but since most of these luxuries are beyond me perhaps that's no surprise. I don't ever hope for a far left government, funnily enough, because it wouldn't work without changing the conscious social and political economy. I see no problem arguing for imaginative thinking about how a better democracy and economy would work and pushing for political accountability - whatever happens.

I found this article interesting,
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/leaving-the-middle-class-comfort-zone-to-save-the-planet
even though it's old news.

I rather take issue with it on the focus on 'fighting the 1%' as opposed to 'consumer action' - forgive my simplification - though, because both work together.
 

Adam4868

Guru
The country will not go for a far left government because, although there are too many disadvantaged people, the majority are quite comfortable in their houses with cars, big TV's, holidays overseas.
I'd strongly disagree that Corbyn/Labour were far left but... you say that yet the 2017 election saw one of the biggest voter turnout in 20 years.Popular manifesto with many.
Even the Brexit referendum got people to vote,if they think it's going to make a difference to them.
Private healthcare is not going to go away, and there is no reason why it should have to. The NHS has to live alongside private heathcare and there will inevitably be crossing of borders, which can be controlled and used to benefit the NHS and is not the same as privatisation of the NHS, despite the headlines from some quarters.
Might aswell just accept things the way they are then ?
Meanwhile we keep getting Tory governments
Just a changing of the guard...not a great deal of change,just a different coloured rossete :rolleyes:
The way it's going I'd predict a sh1t turnout :rolleyes:
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
I'd strongly disagree that Corbyn/Labour were far left but... you say that yet the 2017 election saw one of the biggest voter turnout in 20 years.Popular manifesto with many.
Even the Brexit referendum got people to vote,if they think it's going to make a difference to them.

Might aswell just accept things the way they are then ?

Just a changing of the guard...not a great deal of change,just a different coloured rossete :rolleyes:
The way it's going I'd predict a sh1t turnout :rolleyes:
I agree that the manifesto Labour put forward under Corbyn was not far left at all, but the battle had been lost by then because of the illusion, and subsequent belief by many who don't actually read manifestos, that he was far left. I believe it was mainly Brexit, but also the fact that there was such a lot of publicity around Corbyn led to a high turnout.

Accepting the reality that private healthcare will continue to exist alongside the NHS does not mean that things should not change for the better within the NHS, including the way it uses the skills of private healthcare companies. Or do you think that there should be no private healthcare or no collaboration between it and the NHS? It does not have to be an all or nothing choice.

If Labour could get its act together rather than fighting internal wars it could arrive at a consensus leadership that would not be just a change of rosette colour from the Tories.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
I agree that the manifesto Labour put forward under Corbyn was not far left at all, but the battle had been lost by then because of the illusion, and subsequent belief by many who don't actually read manifestos, that he was far left. I believe it was mainly Brexit, but also the fact that there was such a lot of publicity around Corbyn led to a high turnout.

Accepting the reality that private healthcare will continue to exist alongside the NHS does not mean that things should not change for the better within the NHS, including the way it uses the skills of private healthcare companies. Or do you think that there should be no private healthcare or no collaboration between it and the NHS? It does not have to be an all or nothing choice.

If Labour could get its act together rather than fighting internal wars it could arrive at a consensus leadership that would not be just a change of rosette colour from the Tories.
But while 'Labour getting its act together instead of fighting internal wars' pretty well means the left get shoved it won't. Corbyn, ironically, was that consensus leader.

Losing Simon Stevens as head of the NHS was a good move, potentially. I think things have changed a bit for the better in the NHS because it would have collapsed under covid if staff, rather than management, had not moved things forward to cope. The 2012 Health and Social Care Act having removed government responsibility for providing universal health provision is still a problem.
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
But while 'Labour getting its act together instead of fighting internal wars' pretty well means the left get shoved it won't. Corbyn, ironically, was that consensus leader.

Losing Simon Stevens as head of the NHS was a good move, potentially. I think things have changed a bit for the better in the NHS because it would have collapsed under covid if staff, rather than management, had not moved things forward to cope. The 2012 Health and Social Care Act having removed government responsibility for providing universal health provision is still a problem.
I agree that, at that time, as part of the new enthusiasm created by increased membership and new methods of leadership selection, he could be regarded as the consensus leader of the membership, but that clearly was not reflected across the party establishment, did not last, and the party was still as divided as ever. Starmer has also been chosen by a large majority of the party membership and by far the largest number of nominations by MPs and MEPs, and still the conflict continues.
Real consensus takes more than just a majority of votes, imo.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
I agree that, at that time, as part of the new enthusiasm created by increased membership and new methods of leadership selection, he could be regarded as the consensus leader of the membership, but that clearly was not reflected across the party establishment, did not last, and the party was still as divided as ever. Starmer has also been chosen by a large majority of the party membership and by far the largest number of nominations by MPs and MEPs, and still the conflict continues.
Real consensus takes more than just a majority of votes, imo.
Are you saying that democracy within the Labour Party should not be based solely on the membership, but rather the establishment should be able to exercise a veto?

Clearly it did so. Are you sure this was not at least partly because, being a man of principle, Jeremy Corbyn wanted to root out corrupt practice?

I agree real consensus takes more than a vote count. It takes accountability, and full information sharing, and a vote count.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.or...ponds-to-her-expulsion-from-the-labour-party/

Leah Levine's letter. She was expelled just when she was due to speak at the national conference. Please read the comments.
 

Adam4868

Guru
I agree that, at that time, as part of the new enthusiasm created by increased membership and new methods of leadership selection, he could be regarded as the consensus leader of the membership, but that clearly was not reflected across the party establishment, did not last, and the party was still as divided as ever. Starmer has also been chosen by a large majority of the party membership and by far the largest number of nominations by MPs and MEPs, and still the conflict continues.
Real consensus takes more than just a majority of votes, imo.
Do you think if Starmer had won his Leadership contest by saying he was going to remove the whip from Corbyn and go back on his so called ten pledges he'd of won the contest ?
Do any journalists even challenge him on any of this or his expulsion of members ?
Everyone who bought into the lies and smears about Corbyn and then have the nerve to say "get behind him,it's our only chance" lol...
The irony....
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
Are you saying that democracy within the Labour Party should not be based solely on the membership, but rather the establishment should be able to exercise a veto?

Clearly it did so. Are you sure this was not at least partly because, being a man of principle, Jeremy Corbyn wanted to root out corrupt practice?

I agree real consensus takes more than a vote count. It takes accountability, and full information sharing, and a vote count.
No I am not saying that at all. I am questioning whether real consensus, rather than expedience, was achieved at that time.

I believe Corbyn was a man of principle, but I have no particular view about him being determined to root out corrupt practice. Principles are very important in a leader, but many politicians have them, indeed Corbyn also had them in his 32 years as a back bencher, but there are other factors needed in a successful party leader.

Are you saying that Starmer does not have consensus being the choice of a large majority of members and elected politicians? The Party is the same party, with the same rules, as when Corbyn was leader before he resigned after leading the party to losses in two GEs and very poor results in local and EU elections. A principled resignation.

I just saw an item on the internet (Telegraph, so not that reliable) that Corbyn is considering starting his own party. That would be interesting.
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
Do you think if Starmer had won his Leadership contest by saying he was going to remove the whip from Corbyn and go back on his so called ten pledges he'd of won the contest ?
Do any journalists even challenge him on any of this or his expulsion of members ?
Everyone who bought into the lies and smears about Corbyn and then have the nerve to say "get behind him,it's our only chance" lol...
The irony....
Of course he wouldn't have won, but was he planning to remove the whip from Corbyn at the time? Has he gone back on every one of those 10 pledges in his rather anodyne 10 principles?
I am not saying that the party must get behind him as I am extremely disappointed in his lacklustre performance since becoming leader and he should not be immune from challenge.

What I am saying is that this appears to be just a continuation of Labour's self-inflicted damage.
 

farfromtheland

Regular AND Goofy
Are you saying that Starmer does not have consensus being the choice of a large majority of members and elected politicians? The Party is the same party, with the same rules, as when Corbyn was leader before he resigned after leading the party to losses in two GEs and very poor results in local and EU elections. A principled resignation.
The first general election result - huge swing to Labour - was a surprise to the admin of his own party. The second was, well, complicated.

And, rules did change last year
https://labourlist.org/2021/10/ever...ference-2021-what-it-means-and-how-it-passed/

I misspelled Leah Levane's name, sorry.
 

Adam4868

Guru
Of course he wouldn't have won, but was he planning to remove the whip from Corbyn at the time? Has he gone back on every one of those 10 pledges in his rather anodyne 10 principles?
I am not saying that the party must get behind him as I am extremely disappointed in his lacklustre performance since becoming leader and he should not be immune from challenge.

What I am saying is that this appears to be just a continuation of Labour's self-inflicted damage.
He seemed to have a pretty clear vision who he wanted to get rid of ?
"Keir Starmer has said he is willing to tear up the promises he made during the Labour leadership election if it is needed to make the party electable."
I won't bore you with broken promises but some details would of been important to those who voted for him ?
Such as common ownership for industries like energy, rail etc...
I was never a big fan of him,maybe I would of got behind him but his lack of anything and his whole love in with Blair/Mandleson...people who I really think the party should be distancing themselves from and his treatment of Corbyn.Cant be arsed with the media speculation of Corbyns new party,standing someone against him in Islington blah,blah.But it does put me even more of him.
Your more than likely right,that was probably the closest were ever going to get to having someone decent as a PM.Far to good and honest to be put through so much shite as he was.
 

Rusty Nails

Upright Member
The first general election result - huge swing to Labour - was a surprise to the admin of his own party. The second was, well, complicated.

And, rules did change last year
https://labourlist.org/2021/10/ever...ference-2021-what-it-means-and-how-it-passed/

I misspelled Leah Levane's name, sorry.
Every election loss is always complicated.
I meant changes to leadership election rules. They were pretty much as before other than introducing a very sensible period before a new party member could vote.
 
Top Bottom