General British politics discussion thread

listermint

Good loser wrote: »

So you'd give 7%, 8% and 10%. Justification: the polls plus, plus.

Cons offer 1% plus and Labour 2.1% plus based on some kind of logic. You reach for the polls. If you went to the public and said you-the-public can have a 7% rise or cut in taxes or social welfare rise or whatever or the nurses can have it what would 'the polls' say?
Relying on the Daily Mail to support anything is the nadir.
All I'm saying is they resolve such matters better in England than here, where all politicians do is duck and dive - except the Left - whose approach is give them what they want!

Bit like yourself, it seems.

They resolve and debate stuff better over there ? I am unsure where you've been the last few years where the Tories have pushed in legislation so that their isn't debate and the government can ram through whatever changes they wish. That's not handling stuff better not at all.


Yesterday that same government voted in a law to prevent people being allowed to take to the streets in protest. All extremely democratic stuff I'm sure that you can agree.


On what level is this handled better in the UK given these facts .

Joe_ Public

Good loser wrote: »

So you'd give 7%, 8% and 10%. Justification: the polls plus, plus.

Cons offer 1% plus and Labour 2.1% plus based on some kind of logic. You reach for the polls. If you went to the public and said you-the-public can have a 7% rise or cut in taxes or social welfare rise or whatever or the nurses can have it what would 'the polls' say?
Relying on the Daily Mail to support anything is the nadir.
All I'm saying is they resolve such matters better in England than here, where all politicians do is duck and dive - except the Left - whose approach is give them what they want!

Bit like yourself, it seems.

Ok, i think i get this now. When the government proposes an utterly risible 1%, which isnt even in line with a projected inflation rise of 1.5% this year, it's jolly well argued chaps, incontrovertible logic there. Very well done.

But dare to suggest even a 7% rise, which wouldn't even take nurses back to their pre austerity pay levels and which enjoys the overwhelming support of the public, and it's evidence of low debating intellect, specious arguments etc

Personally i think labours position is weak and inadequate but what would i, lefty daily mail reader, know anyway? And whats with the repeated shoehorning of ireland into every post? What on earth has ireland got to do with a discussion about british nhs pay?

Lemming

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok, i think i get this now. When the government proposes an utterly risible 1%, which isnt even in line with a projected inflation rise of 1.5% this year, it's jolly well argued chaps, incontrovertible logic there. Very well done.

According to the same talking heads radio show I quoted that nurse from last weekend, the Tories committed to a 2% (might have been 2.5%) rise back in 2019 for the nurses.

So not just risible, but yet more broken promises from the Tories. No surprises there I suppose; "Never Trust a Tory" comes to mind.

Joe_ Public

Lemming wrote: »

According to the same talking heads radio show I quoted that nurse from last weekend, the Tories committed to a 2% (might have been 2.5%) rise back in 2019 for the nurses.

So not just risible, but yet more broken promises from the Tories. No surprises there I suppose; "Never Trust a Tory" comes to mind.

I definitely recall that labour had a 5% commitment in its manifesto, not sure about the cons though. I mean, manifestos are just there to be cherry picked when it suits, like in justifying their police bill yesterday, and when it doesnt, you simply bleat on about how much has changed, our hands tied etc. But i do definitely remember the repeated pledge for "50,000 NEW nurses" and it then transpiring that close to 20,000 of them would only actually be replacements, so not new at all. Oh, and the 40 totally "new" hospitals. That was another good one!

Lemming

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I definitely recall that labour had a 5% commitment in its manifesto, not sure about the cons though. I mean, manifestos are just there to be cherry picked when it suits, like in justifying their police bill yesterday, and when it doesnt, you simply bleat on about how much has changed, our hands tied etc. But i do definitely remember the repeated pledge for "50,000 NEW nurses" and it then transpiring that close to 20,000 of them would only actually be replacements, so not new at all. Oh, and the 40 totally "new" hospitals. That was another good one!

And again several weeks ago I recall a government spokesperson - can't recall who now - trying to argue with the interviewer & other panelists (Saturday afternoon politics discussion show on BBC2 radio I think) that including existing nurses in the figures was not masturbatory levels of massaging of figures but to be taken seriously since apparently "they would have left anyway so keeping them is equivalent to increasing nursing capacity". Suffice to say the Tory talking head was met with derision and given a hard time of it.

This whole NHS nursing issue has been brewing for quite some time now and the pandemic has only brought it screaming to the fore of the public consciousness, much to the irritation of the Tories I'm sure hence some of the serious attempts at dead cat bouncing going on over the past week across the media. I dare say the pandemic has made that focus sharper because it has now expanded to include nursing homes in the public consciousness too. But if it's not this issue, it's another issue as the current cabinet seem to keep putting their foot in it in spectacular fashion.

Joe_ Public

Thats how i recall it playing out in 2019. The initial - obviously naive - assumption that "50,000 new nurses" simply meant 50,000 new nurses and then, when questions were asked, the retreat to semantic chicanery where they said they were "technically" new as they would be new employees, that nobody had actually said there would be 50,000 "more" nurses etc. And we often wonder why people become cynical about politics.

As for pay, i think thats a crucial point. The current dispute isnt just one of those where one side can be portrayed as the latest round of over indulged public servants trying to suck more off the public teat. They are not some sort of enemy here to be faced down and put back in their box. If firefighters in new york had been seeking a pay rise in 2002, would they have faced the same hostility? I dont think so. Maybe NHS workers are not quite in that bracket of worship, but they bore the harshest brunt of all those on the frontline over the past year, suffering over 850 deaths at the last count i saw, and there is widespread recognition of that service among the general public which i think puts them in a very strong position when it comes to arguing their case, both morally and practically. It's a pretty simple equation. The government has often been at pains to stress how they value their nurses and other heathcare workers. Well, now the question is being asked: how much?

Capt'n Midnight

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats how i recall it playing out in 2019. The initial - obviously naive - assumption that "50,000 new nurses" simply meant 50,000 new nurses and then, when questions were asked, the retreat to semantic chicanery where they said they were "technically" new as they would be new employees, that nobody had actually said there would be 50,000 "more" nurses etc. And we often wonder why people become cynical about politics.

Not just new employees, they also included people who would otherwise have retired.

Blocking Free Movement isn't helping recruitment.
84,000 staff needed. One in ten nursing positions are vacant. 28 per cent of nurses and health visitors leave the NHS within the first three years of their service.

Good loser

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ok, i think i get this now. When the government proposes an utterly risible 1%, which isnt even in line with a projected inflation rise of 1.5% this year, it's jolly well argued chaps, incontrovertible logic there. Very well done.

But dare to suggest even a 7% rise, which wouldn't even take nurses back to their pre austerity pay levels and which enjoys the overwhelming support of the public, and it's evidence of low debating intellect, specious arguments etc

Personally i think labours position is weak and inadequate but what would i, lefty daily mail reader, know anyway? And whats with the repeated shoehorning of ireland into every post? What on earth has ireland got to do with a discussion about british nhs pay?

No, you don't get it now. Don't get it at all.
You deal with my suggestion/proposal as if it is about the level of the nurses' pay increase in the NHS.
It is not as I have already stated. I can accuse you of shoehorning the level of nurses' pay in England into a debate (which I introduced) about whether matters such as this - public sector pay levels if you like - are more fairly debated in the public sphere in Ireland or in England. That's all.

Good loser

listermint wrote: »

They resolve and debate stuff better over there ? I am unsure where you've been the last few years where the Tories have pushed in legislation so that their isn't debate and the government can ram through whatever changes they wish. That's not handling stuff better not at all.


Yesterday that same government voted in a law to prevent people being allowed to take to the streets in protest. All extremely democratic stuff I'm sure that you can agree.


On what level is this handled better in the UK given these facts .

My post was about the current nurses' pay issue and only that.

Possibly could be widened to public service pay - but strictly I'm not arguing the wider point.

Lemming

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats how i recall it playing out in 2019. The initial - obviously naive - assumption that "50,000 new nurses" simply meant 50,000 new nurses and then, when questions were asked, the retreat to semantic chicanery where they said they were "technically" new as they would be new employees, that nobody had actually said there would be 50,000 "more" nurses etc. And we often wonder why people become cynical about politics.

Don't forget the "40" new hospitals where the reality was that the funding for 18 - if I recall (??) - had already been approved previously (with a handful already under construction at the time) so it wasn't 40 new hospitals, it was a number half that. Of course, the country will most likely be lucky to see those already approved from a budget point of view to go ahead anytime near the promised time-frame (2030), even prior to the pandemic rearing its head to say hello.

If firefighters in new york had been seeking a pay rise in 2002, would they have faced the same hostility? I dont think so. Maybe NHS workers are not quite in that bracket of worship, but they bore the harshest brunt of all those on the frontline over the past year, suffering over 850 deaths at the last count i saw, and there is widespread recognition of that service among the general public which i think puts them in a very strong position when it comes to arguing their case, both morally and practically. It's a pretty simple equation. The government has often been at pains to stress how they value their nurses and other heathcare workers. Well, now the question is being asked: how much?

It's funny; the NHS is held with a level of general reverence that would appear to transcend most divisions within UK life. And yet here we are with the government very visibly fobbing off NHS staff in the most desperate, derisory manner possible all the same time its track record over the last year has seen over 100 contracts palmed off; a sizeable number to Tory party beneficiaries with zero fiscal oversight to the tune of billions.

To be honest I am a little surprised at just how brazen Johnson and his cabinet have been with the NHS pay rise when one considers that the afore-mentioned reverence that the public hold the NHS to. It's a bit like watching a blonde rotund thug beat up the nice little old lady who lives across the street whilst the entire street is watching. I can't see how this ends well ultimately for the government and I'm pretty certain they know that already so my only thoughts are that either Johnson believes himself unassailable with the current parliamentary arithmetic and/or that he has the media in his pocket, or else they are planning to do some sort of ploy to the tune of "Well, here's some extra change we found down the back of the sofa. Aren't we great?" in an attempt to play to the gallery.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Blocking Free Movement isn't helping recruitment.
84,000 staff needed. One in ten nursing positions are vacant. 28 per cent of nurses and health visitors leave the NHS within the first three years of their service.

The numbers in the community care sector are even worse again; estimates of 100,000 vacancies this year, with many care homes in England already operating with 25% vacancies.

I would also query what is the drop-out rate amongst student nurses given that the existing bursary (which wasn't much to begin with) has been stopped too. I think back to the girls I knew leaving school to do nursing back in Ireland and not one of them lasted the duration of what was a tough course.

Joe_ Public

Good loser wrote: »

No, you don't get it now. Don't get it at all.
You deal with my suggestion/proposal as if it is about the level of the nurses' pay increase in the NHS.
It is not as I have already stated. I can accuse you of shoehorning the level of nurses' pay in England into a debate (which I introduced) about whether matters such as this - public sector pay levels if you like - are more fairly debated in the public sphere in Ireland or in England. That's all.

I mean, this is the very first sentence you typed in this exchange: "I must say I am impressed with the treatment and political debate in England on the nurses pay issue."

But apparently, you werent talking about nurses pay at all. Well, okay then. As to this great and wondrous debate you keep referencing, you dont seem to flesh it out or offer any backup evidence, despite being asked by several posters. I for one would definitely be interested to hear more about it, a few examples or maybe some sample exchanges just so we have an idea what you are referring to.

Just for reference, would an exchange such as this qualify as superior level of discourse in your estimation? I mean, i would have to admit this is pretty top quality gaslighting from the health minister. Is this what you were referring to when you talked about the impressive logic of their position?

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1372275219386208263?s=20

quokula

It seems the Tories have decided the public and the media are suitably distracted by vaccines to get started on some of their more insidious plans, from making local and mayoral elections less democratic, to neutering the judiciary, to cracking down on the right to peaceful protest.

Meanwhile the leader of the opposition is sticking to his central pillar of barely opposing the Tories and is focussing his attention on attacking Nicola Sturgeon instead. I despair for the state of the UK these days, I really do.

Rjd2

quokula wrote: »

It seems the Tories have decided the public and the media are suitably distracted by vaccines to get started on some of their more insidious plans, from making local and mayoral elections less democratic, to neutering the judiciary, to cracking down on the right to peaceful protest.

Meanwhile the leader of the opposition is sticking to his central pillar of barely opposing the Tories and is focussing his attention on attacking Nicola Sturgeon instead. I despair for the state of the UK these days, I really do.

Labour are struggling in Scotland and SNP are rivals so no reason for him not to stick the boot in regarding Nicola tbf .

The other stuff I'd agree with

Joe_ Public

I'd be more concerned with what is happening in Hartlepool tbh. Hard for labour to be making noises about undemocratic processes when the leadership has basically ignored the selection process to impose its preferred candidate for the upcoming election. A guy who went on what was pretty much a jolly to Saudi Arabia and came back saying what a great progressive bunch of lads the Sheikhs were. If this is what the party thinks will appeal to a post brexit landscape, then i would have to fear the worst for it.

breezy1985

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'd be more concerned with what is happening in Hartlepool tbh. Hard for labour to be making noises about undemocratic processes when the leadership has basically ignored the selection process to impose its preferred candidate for the upcoming election. A guy who went on what was pretty much a jolly to Saudi Arabia and came back saying what a great progressive bunch of lads the Sheikhs were. If this is what the party thinks will appeal to a post brexit landscape, then i would have to fear the worst for it.

This will surely appeal to Tory voters

Joe_ Public

breezy1985 wrote: »

This will surely appeal to Tory voters

Sure who knows, i doubt it but even if it was, it would be balanced out by the fact the chosen candidate was a staunch remainer in a constituency that voted 70% for brexit. There are other, maybe bigger, issues now, but that would seem quite problematic to me anyway.

Rjd2

Hartlepool is a tough one.

Bookies have it 50/50 and that is fair.

Rare that governments win these by elections and its been with Labour for decades.

Those who voted for Tice its quite possible the majority were pissed of Labour voters who wanted Brexit but did not want to vote tory.

I'l drill through the numbers some other time but people are very naive if people think all brexit party and ukip voters love The Tories.

Brexit is a dead issue so a remainer won't hurt that much, but yeah surely they could have find a leaver or who wasn't so strongly remain?

Rjd2

Doubt Tory voters give a **** about the Saudi connection one way or other sadly.

It won't make noise outside the internet.

Joe_ Public

Well, the labour leadership obviously deems brexit a non issue as this is their preferred imposed candidate on a shortlist of one. This is starmers man. We'll see how it turns out for them, i'm certain the tories will still hammer it, how can this guy be trusted on other issues, he lied to you, tried to deny your democracy etc. Everytime he tries to criticise the government, they just come back with that. Simple and very trite, but i think it does some damage.

He's an ex mp, also a gp and think his missus is a nurse, in nhs anyway, so his big selling point is being on the covid frontline. Thats good, but will it be enough?

Labour was 2/5 in betting a week ago. Now its neck and neck. Where i think they might be doomed is the Northern Independence candidate will likely take a few 1,000 votes and quite a lot of them will be disillusioned voters from the left. I'm just guessing on that, will wait to see the first polls.

breezy1985

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Well, the labour leadership obviously deems brexit a non issue as this is their preferred imposed candidate on a shortlist of one. This is starmers man. We'll see how it turns out for them, i'm certain the tories will still hammer it, how can this guy be trusted on other issues, he lied to you, tried to deny your democracy etc. Everytime he tries to criticise the government, they just come back with that. Simple and very trite, but i think it does some damage.

He's an ex mp, also a gp and think his missus is a nurse, in nhs anyway, so his big selling point is being on the covid frontline. Thats good, but will it be enough?

Labour was 2/5 in betting a week ago. Now its neck and neck. Where i think they might be doomed is the Northern Independence candidate will likely take a few 1,000 votes and quite a lot of them will be disillusioned voters from the left. I'm just guessing on that, will wait to see the first polls.

Most people dont care enough about politics to notice how a candidate is picked so this is a on issue outside political media and forums


Given how jingoistic UK politics is now the GP thing might be huge but I dont think it will outweigh the feeling towards brexit and pesky foreigners takin the jobs just yet

Joe_ Public

breezy1985 wrote: »

Most people dont care enough about politics to notice how a candidate is picked so this is a on issue outside political media and forums


Given how jingoistic UK politics is now the GP thing might be huge but I dont think it will outweigh the feeling towards brexit and pesky foreigners takin the jobs just yet

The point really is that as this is a candidate cherrypicked by the top, the result will offer a clearer indication as to their strategy and sense of judgement. As opposed to their having been a shortlist of 3 diverse candidates and this is whom the local clp chose. Instead, they parachute this guy in and impose him from the top. That is why it matters, i think.

And even the gp thing is problematic when you know he's going to be hit with, "yeah, all very well, but if you had your way, we'd have stuck with the EMA and never got ahead on vaccine roll out." Just dont see how this guy wins on any metric, but i have been known to be wrong before so...

fiveleavesleft

So what are your thoughts on Starman's first year? Pretty dreadful over all in my opinion. However his new idea of getting out into the country holding Town Hall debates may be the making of him. In his own very Partridge-esque words he's... 'looking forward to take off the mask & open the throttle':D

Any thoughts? Do you like/dislike him? What has he done well?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/02/amid-unease-on-the-left-starmer-aims-to-bring-labour-home

https://news.sky.com/story/one-year-of-sir-keir-after-a-strong-start-whats-gone-wrong-for-the-labour-leader-12264827

Leroy42

If you cannot lay on a glove on a government riddled with corruption, incompetence, failure, the disaster of a Brexit deal then you are doing a pretty poor job.

Sometimes you don't even need to be particularly great, just not as bad as the others and yet Starmer is unable to provide any sort of alternative. He seems incapable of holding Johnson to account.

He has had some good PMQ's, although even that has faded, that seems to be it. The rest of the week it almost as if they are too scared to say or do anything in case they can't it wrong.

So overall a very disappointing last year. In saying that, it is a tough job. Labour itself is a mess, riven by divisions and without a clear purpose. The media certainly don't help, but that is the job he took and I would have at least expected that he started to mould a purpose and clear identificaiton of the Labour party.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you cannot lay on a glove on a government riddled with corruption, incompetence, failure, the disaster of a Brexit deal then you are doing a pretty poor job.

Sometimes you don't even need to be particularly great, just not as bad as the others and yet Starmer is unable to provide any sort of alternative. He seems incapable of holding Johnson to account.

He has had some good PMQ's, although even that has faded, that seems to be it. The rest of the week it almost as if they are too scared to say or do anything in case they can't it wrong.

So overall a very disappointing last year. In saying that, it is a tough job. Labour itself is a mess, riven by divisions and without a clear purpose. The media certainly don't help, but that is the job he took and I would have at least expected that he started to mould a purpose and clear identificaiton of the Labour party.

He's been disappointing, though it should be stated that he's up against a single party government, backed by a deeply corrupt press who see themselves as part of the Tory Party and who see it as their role to keep Johnson in power. This would be a big struggle for any Opposition - he's up against an army of liars, spivs and charlatans.

Joe_ Public

He's done very poorly and he has a weak front bench. I dont feel Angela Rayners heart is truly in the party's current positioning, there's talk of Annalise Dodds being demoted and i think the likes of Lisa Nandy offer very little. The fact that Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are talked up as next labour leader, neither even in parliament, is very telling.

Starmers big thing is selling labour as a party of patriotism and law and order, appealing to the voters they lost in 2019. When did you ever imagine a labour party ever arguing for lower taxes than the tories? I find that truly mindboggling tbh. The point of all this is it was sold as competent leadership, what had to be done to get power back. But guess what, they're not even winning many of those lost voters back, who can see the phoniness a mile off, while alienating the young minority vote and left wing which they absolutely need to stay on board. I honestly don't see any path to victory down this road, just seems like the worst of both worlds to me right now.

breezy1985

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He's done very poorly and he has a weak front bench. I dont feel Angela Rayners heart is truly in the party's current positioning, there's talk of Annalise Dodds being demoted and i think the likes of Lisa Nandy offer very little. The fact that Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are talked up as next labour leader, neither even in parliament, is very telling.

Starmers big thing is selling labour as a party of patriotism and law and order, appealing to the voters they lost in 2019. When did you ever imagine a labour party ever arguing for lower taxes than the tories? I find that truly mindboggling tbh. The point of all this is it was sold as competent leadership, what had to be done to get power back. But guess what, they're not even winning many of those lost voters back, who can see the phoniness a mile off, while alienating the young minority vote and left wing which they absolutely need to stay on board. I honestly don't see any path to victory down this road, just seems like the worst of both worlds to me right now.

Why are Burnham and Khan telling?
Both are very well regarded in the party and have the personality for a PM run. Khans ethnicity will rule him out in some quarters but other than that the are both good choices

Leroy42

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why are Burnham and Khan telling?
Both are very well regarded in the party and have the personality for a PM run. Khans ethnicity will rule him out in some quarters but other than that the are both good choices

Because currently they are not even MP's. What does it say about the shadow bench that people outside the HoC are on the list?

Joe_ Public

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why are Burnham and Khan telling?
Both are very well regarded in the party and have the personality for a PM run. Khans ethnicity will rule him out in some quarters but other than that the are both good choices

I'm saying it's telling because they're not in parliament so it just goes to show the lack of quality that is sitting on the opposition benches right now. Both would have to get themselves elected before they could launch a leadership bid so thats not entirely straightforward. If Starmer didn't last the course for some reason, very unlikely but you never know, then i honestly don't know who they'd come up with.

PommieBast

Starmer is basically in the same position as Neil Kinnock in 1983 so he will be playing the long game. There is not a lot he can do before the euporia of the vaccination program disappears.

Nody

PommieBast wrote: »

Starmer is basically in the same position as Neil Kinnock in 1983 so he will be playing the long game. There is not a lot he can do before the euporia of the vaccination program disappears.

He could gone after NHS raises; that would play well out (our brave nurses on the front line deserve the credit etc. to steal thunder from Boris). He could go after Boris on the corruption in government and ask why all his buddies ended up with multi million contracts that were not disclosed pointing out that money could have gone to struggling businesses/lower taxes/NHS. He could have called out the lack of support for businesses hit by Brexit and Covid and present a plan how he'd support it further. He could have gone after the abysmal support for truck drivers and not getting a fair deal for them and how the truck parking lots are running over will of the people etc. There's plenty of items he could go after that should be right up Labour's alley that he simply sat quiet on and and instead wanted Labour to talk more about the "good old days and wave some more flags".

In short; a failure as a leader and a great disappointment and that's taking over from a leader who was wishy washy on everything and yet Starmer somehow managed to show up as even less of an leader with even less of actual opinions and wish to hold the Tory government responsible for anything beyond wanting to out Tory the Tories in the hope it will gain him back the lost votes.