Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
I've always been against private medicine because it has often involved people using their money to jump to the front of NHS queues, thereby pushing everyone else further back.
I don't understand his point about 'busting NHS pay structures' though, as doctors and nurses are usually paid more outside the NHS. He comes across as lashing out with whatever point comes to mind without thinking things through, which doesn't help his cause. Pointing out the inefficiencies of private medicine and how we collectively would get less for our money would be a better argument.
I doubt he has one.
If you want to get waiting times down short-term you use all available resources. Including private.
In the meantime you increase capacity and staffing levels in the NHS for medium to long-term improvements.
I can't think of another way to alleviate waiting times. We can't just magic up capacity and staff within a year or two.
The problem with these kinds of arrangements is that the Government usually show even less negotiating skill than Ed Woodward and the taxpayer ends up paying through the nose.
This is also true of course.
But if we want to bring down the waiting lists we might have to just grin and bear it. Or maybe the Government will miraculously not get shafted this time.
To be fair, the private work tends to happen away from normal hospitals, and if they are using the property, they pay decent rents. You've got to allow some of the more specialised doctors to subsidise their NHS income.
Tbf my suggestion would never be take up by current leadership. I would just take by force the private sector has as useful and bring it into the NHS. While continuing to massively reinvest into the NHS(Unrealistic blah blah, communism, etc)
Just seems odd that people can hear a politician(Who has received money from private health insurance companies)talking about a policy of giving NHS money to private health, that doesn’t even seem to have the potential work to as NHS staff make up a large percentage of private healthcare staff, so where are these massive extra of numbers coming from ? So its just taking away from the NHS resources and it’s undermining political goal of providing healthcare for everyone. Plus Streeting admits as a policy it wouldn’t even work long term.
But this is somehow a good thing. A policy that wouldn’t have worked in 2010 is brought back for 2022.
Last edited:
I don't think your suggestion is realistic, it's twitter politics at best. From what I can see you're more concerned by the optics than actually getting the issue of waiting lists addressed. Sitting on a moral high ground of policy, doesn't actually address any of the current issues that's being faced at the ground level in the NHS, primarily staffing levels and the second physical capacity to see and treat patients. Using capacity out in the private sector to relieve the pressure on the NHS waiting list gives a period to address staffing and investment levels, the latter is something which hasn't happened for the past 12 years. Overlaid with addressing pay at the lower end of the sector to retain the existing workforce.
Do you have stats which highlights how many of the 1.2m NHS staff make up private healthcare?
You also can't take away something from the NHS that it can't physically deliver quickly. Training staff takes years, working visa changes made immediately will have an impact within 6-12 months if there's a monumental shift in applications. Streeting is right that it wouldn't work as a policy long term, but he's also right in that it needs capacity (which the private sector has) to address the waiting list. The short term alternatives don't exist at the moment.
Cool story bro.
At some point people are going to have to realise it isn’t the mid 2000’s any. Atm a global pandemic and hottest summer on record still haven’t change people minds. But anyway something something Twitter.
Tbh it’s my fault for clicking the show ignored content button.
Sorry if I touched a nerve. Certainly wasn't my intention for some discourse on a subject which isn't fixed by likes & retweets sadly.
You opened your response by calling his opinion "twitter politics" and accusing him of not actually wanting to fix the issue. That's not particularly conducive for honest discourse.
I love someone playing mr serious opinions whilst posting on a football forum 
I probably needed to put more sarcasm on my last post. It's not that deep and I'm sure we'll get over a difference of opinion.
Irony is broken.
Yep. It was a disgrace and the current Tory government have lot to thank the right leaning staff and MPs in the Labour party for.
It's partly why I will find it very difficult to hold my nose and vote for Keir's Labour party in its current guise.
The NHS have been paying shit tons to private hospitals to reduce waiting list backlogs for years. That isn’t a new thing. I guess you can make it sound new in an interview though.
I'm sad to say. You shouldn't.
Diane Abbott is a prime example, it is the subconscious prejudice which makes her a figure of media ridicule while the likes of Truss are potential PM's. Its a joke and the foundations for this "accepted" prejudice seem to start from within the Labour party.
Keir has used the weaponisation of anti semitism to sideline Corbyn and have his kind purge. Continuing the exact problems singled out in the report.
Demands snap election.
Offers no concrete policies.
This is not going to end well...
wouldn't a simple policy slogan be "less tax for those who need it; more tax for those who need it"? taxbreaks for the lower bands managed by taxhikes on the very highest.
This is what is really worrying me about Labour at the moment - not just a lack of policies but a lack of evidence of any groundwork to come up with policies. Wait until October? Why? We have faced a pandemic, a war in Europe and a cost of living crisis, but the problems of Britain in 2022 are broadly the same as they were in 2020, and in 2010. People are living in poverty, children are growing up in poverty, productivity is low, inequality is high, the Union is failing, the gig economy is booming, and so on, and so on.
Opposition parties need to be doing policy work years in advance.
This is a 7 page guide from the Institute for Government about 'Making Policy in Opposition', published during the Coalition years: https://www.instituteforgovernment....ons/Making policy in opposition - final_0.pdf.
It is short (if you do want to read it), but here are a couple of key excerpts:
Where is the evidence of this work?
In 1992 John Smith organised a Commission on Social Justice which ran for the best part of three years. In opposition. Here is the 400+ page report and recommendations: https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/commission-on-social-justice_final_2014.pdf
Whatever you think of New Labour they started planning for government in 1992 and developing policies early on. Some of the reasons (in my view) that Labour members held their noses and voted for Starmer was the promise of competence and a better chance of a Labour Government. But that does actually require work.
Labour may surprise me and pull fully costed plans and worked up policies for Conference to approve. But in an age of social media and 24 hour news (and leaks!) no one has given any indication as to what these are. Which makes me wonder whether they exist...
Opposition parties need to be doing policy work years in advance.
This is a 7 page guide from the Institute for Government about 'Making Policy in Opposition', published during the Coalition years: https://www.instituteforgovernment....ons/Making policy in opposition - final_0.pdf.
It is short (if you do want to read it), but here are a couple of key excerpts:
Where is the evidence of this work?
In 1992 John Smith organised a Commission on Social Justice which ran for the best part of three years. In opposition. Here is the 400+ page report and recommendations: https://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/commission-on-social-justice_final_2014.pdf
Whatever you think of New Labour they started planning for government in 1992 and developing policies early on. Some of the reasons (in my view) that Labour members held their noses and voted for Starmer was the promise of competence and a better chance of a Labour Government. But that does actually require work.
Labour may surprise me and pull fully costed plans and worked up policies for Conference to approve. But in an age of social media and 24 hour news (and leaks!) no one has given any indication as to what these are. Which makes me wonder whether they exist...
this is exactly why starmer got elected. but the government part is pointless without the policy part. they need to devise serious policy groundwork. if they don't offer an alternative, which is both costed and transformational, then they're done. starmer said he would fight the next election on the economy. great. now where's the economic policy? there should be testing of manifesto material at this point.
the key point really is that corbyn's agenda on economic policy was and is widely popular and necessary. it's green new deal type legislation that the UK needs just as much as the US. starmer needs to find a way to translate that into serious economic policy. he's either too afraid of being charged with corbynism or has no intention of actually accomplishing anything transformative in economic terms. the first scenario should be easily overcome at this point after a three year war on the left. the second would be the ultimate nightmare as starmer would have wasted everyone's time for nothing.
corbyn but practical and analytical and without the division corbyn brought was the promise. time to deliver.
Yep, cannot object to that.
Here's the thing. I have heard defences of Starmer from my MP, MPs giving presentations to the local party, and even party officials basically saying that he needed to sort out the anti-Semitism in the party, regain control of the party's machinery from the left, before selling Labour as electable to the voters.
Now, I am going to take that line as 100% true, for the sake of argument.
Even if that is true, there was nothing stopping Starmer on Day 1 from commissioning centre-left groups and organisations and think tanks (of which there are dozens) and from empowering loyal MPs to undertake policy development and policy work, which most likely would have completed most of the detailed work by this point, two years on.
Labour are insanely vulnerable to a snap election.
which shouldn't be the case because the tories are incredibly weak at this point. it's like a battle of incompetency. labour are only vulnerable because they have no economic policy or are keeping it very hidden. all he has to do is commission the think tanks as you say to find a cobyn style or sanders or biden style build back better gnd plan which can be costed. doesn't have to take it directly from corbyn but does have to offer the same prospect of transformation and equity however he goes about it.
Starmer is a Tory in disguise.
The bolded is quite the leap.
Starmer has had plenty of time and previously assured members of specific policies in his 10 pledges.
It is meant to be! I don't believe the bolded. My point is even if the leadership's line and explanation is accepted, and you ignore all the legitimate criticisms you can throw at them and assume everything they have said is true and everything they have done has been part of a grand master plan, they still have been derelict on duty and have done none of the legwork needed to form a potential Government.
Ahh I see.
Fair enough. I really wish they had some ideas or plans to help normal working people in the UK. Sadly it seems they are only focused on purging the party and moving as far away from progressive policy as possible. In the same spirit as the Lorde report confirmed.
irony is, starmer being castigated for being anti-corbyn actually acts as a shield against the inevitable right wings attacks on him as being a commie corbyn second coming...
Wow, good for her.
He's going to come unstuck soon when the "let Boris be Boris" tactic can't work anymore.
Keir Starmer has said a Labour government would fix “broken” water and energy markets through regulation
Keir Starmer has said a Labour government would fix “broken” water and energy markets through regulation before nationalising the railways because of ballooning post-pandemic debt.
The Labour leader distanced himself from his own pledge when he was running for the party’s leadership in 2019 to support “common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”.
He told BBC Breakfast:
However, he said Labour would stick to plans to nationalise the railways if it won the next election.
Keir Starmer has said a Labour government would fix “broken” water and energy markets through regulation before nationalising the railways because of ballooning post-pandemic debt.
The Labour leader distanced himself from his own pledge when he was running for the party’s leadership in 2019 to support “common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”.
He told BBC Breakfast:
Starmer stressed his “pragmatic” approach, saying that for most utilities “the answer is going to lie in regulating the market, changing the market, rather than simply taking things into public ownership”.
However, he said Labour would stick to plans to nationalise the railways if it won the next election.