|
Post by crouchpotato1 on May 28, 2024 8:05:38 GMT
Oh dear
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 28, 2024 8:06:48 GMT
People like to imagine there's no complexity to politics and government and that you can just ride in on your white horse, change all the power structures, convince the wealthy to share more and everyone lives happily ever after. It's a fairytale. It will take decades and decades to prise power and influence from the aristocracy and the ultra wealthy. Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people. The only naive person here Dave is yourself. "Convince the wealthy" - The ruling party doesn't ask for permission to raise taxes you weapon. There's no convincing required. They are voted in to represent the many not the few. "It will take decades and decades" - How many Dave? We've had a century of the same 2 parties. Just another 40 years of Duopoly for change? Or how many? Or maybe if you keep voting for neoliberalism you keep getting neoliberalism? I know people like me don't understand the complexity. So maybe you can explain the complexity around neoliberalism and what it means to vote for parties which believe in this philosophy, and how we just need decades of it and a magic wand will fix everything. Or maybe what we vote for is what we will get? "Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people." - based on what Dave? Scrapping uni fees? Gone. Green 28 billion investment? Gone. Abolishing the house of lords? Gone. Bringing energy and water back under public control? Gone. Giving workers a better deal? Gone. Scrapping private school charitable status? Gone. Ending two child benefit limit? Gone. Increasing income tax for top 5%? Gone. Defend freedom of movement? Gone. Abolishing universal credit? Gone. Stop NHS outsourcing? Gone. Increase digital tax for big tech? Gone. Introduce rent controls? Gone. Stop sale of arms to Saudia Arabia? Gone. Introduce a wealth tax? Gone. Reinstate banker bonuses caps? Gone. So the person leading the party which said it would do all of the above and has u turned on every single one we should trust because he just needs to convince the 1% to do it all and if we keep doing the same thing we've done for decades that in a few decades time it will finally work? You spent 15 years voting tory every election before the last. The party which allowed inequality to thrive and never prioritised the young or the poor. The fact you're now a keen Starmer supporter shows the move to the right which has happened to labour. This mess we now have is what you vote for. So I won't take any lectures from a tory who loves Starmer. If anything that is testament to just how far right this labour party has went. The left and the right both want to reduce everything to binary options - in this case neoliberal v socialist economic policy. It's a false characterisation of a way more nuanced situation. Neoliberalism is founded on the belief that an unfettered free market will benefit the whole of society if left to its own devices through the trickle down effect. The current Tory Party have shown this to be a load if bollocks - neoliberalism has resulted in a massive increase in wealth at the top at the expense of lower living standards for the majority and a huge increase in poverty at the bottom end. Socialist economic policy goes the other way - it fundamentally mistrusts the free market and favours state control. The problem is genuinely socialist economies don't deliver - they disintegrate into inefficiency, nepotism and corruption. Labour is not a socialist party and it isn't a neoliberal party either - its a social democratic party. It recognises that the free market has a major role to play but also that it needs to be managed in order for the benefits to be distributed fairly as left to its own devices an unfettered free market will simply benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. The Tory Party is now going though an equivalent schism to what happened to the Labour Party in the 70s. The economic policy under Hunt is way more like the social democratic model than the pure neoliberal model favoured by the Tory right and when Sinak loses the general election its very likely that a right wing neoliberal will become party leader. The Tory right are making the same mistake as the Corbyn left - they both believe they are the true representatives of the people whereas in fact in practice the majority opinion is in the centre ground where various shades of the social democratic model hold sway. It isnt a binary choice between neoliberalism and socialism. The real battle is between difference shades of a managed free market.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 28, 2024 10:53:32 GMT
The only naive person here Dave is yourself. "Convince the wealthy" - The ruling party doesn't ask for permission to raise taxes you weapon. There's no convincing required. They are voted in to represent the many not the few. "It will take decades and decades" - How many Dave? We've had a century of the same 2 parties. Just another 40 years of Duopoly for change? Or how many? Or maybe if you keep voting for neoliberalism you keep getting neoliberalism? I know people like me don't understand the complexity. So maybe you can explain the complexity around neoliberalism and what it means to vote for parties which believe in this philosophy, and how we just need decades of it and a magic wand will fix everything. Or maybe what we vote for is what we will get? "Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people." - based on what Dave? Scrapping uni fees? Gone. Green 28 billion investment? Gone. Abolishing the house of lords? Gone. Bringing energy and water back under public control? Gone. Giving workers a better deal? Gone. Scrapping private school charitable status? Gone. Ending two child benefit limit? Gone. Increasing income tax for top 5%? Gone. Defend freedom of movement? Gone. Abolishing universal credit? Gone. Stop NHS outsourcing? Gone. Increase digital tax for big tech? Gone. Introduce rent controls? Gone. Stop sale of arms to Saudia Arabia? Gone. Introduce a wealth tax? Gone. Reinstate banker bonuses caps? Gone. So the person leading the party which said it would do all of the above and has u turned on every single one we should trust because he just needs to convince the 1% to do it all and if we keep doing the same thing we've done for decades that in a few decades time it will finally work? You spent 15 years voting tory every election before the last. The party which allowed inequality to thrive and never prioritised the young or the poor. The fact you're now a keen Starmer supporter shows the move to the right which has happened to labour. This mess we now have is what you vote for. So I won't take any lectures from a tory who loves Starmer. If anything that is testament to just how far right this labour party has went. The left and the right both want to reduce everything to binary options - in this case neoliberal v socialist economic policy. It's a false characterisation of a way more nuanced situation. Neoliberalism is founded on the belief that an unfettered free market will benefit the whole of society if left to its own devices through the trickle down effect. The current Tory Party have shown this to be a load if bollocks - neoliberalism has resulted in a massive increase in wealth at the top at the expense of lower living standards for the majority and a huge increase in poverty at the bottom end. Socialist economic policy goes the other way - it fundamentally mistrusts the free market and favours state control. The problem is genuinely socialist economies don't deliver - they disintegrate into inefficiency, nepotism and corruption. Labour is not a socialist party and it isn't a neoliberal party either - its a social democratic party. It recognises that the free market has a major role to play but also that it needs to be managed in order for the benefits to be distributed fairly as left to its own devices an unfettered free market will simply benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else. The Tory Party is now going though an equivalent schism to what happened to the Labour Party in the 70s. The economic policy under Hunt is way more like the social democratic model than the pure neoliberal model favoured by the Tory right and when Sinak loses the general election its very likely that a right wing neoliberal will become party leader. The Tory right are making the same mistake as the Corbyn left - they both believe they are the true representatives of the people whereas in fact in practice the majority opinion is in the centre ground where various shades of the social democratic model hold sway. It isnt a binary choice between neoliberalism and socialism. The real battle is between difference shades of a managed free market. I agree with all of that (and consider myself a Social Democrat rather than a Socialist) save to say, that those 'shades' can actually be quite stark. I voted for Starmer to become party leader (and indeed championed him earlier in this thread) but I won't now be able to vote for Labour at the coming election.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 28, 2024 10:55:33 GMT
Big John I think you are misremembering or reinventing history In the 2016 Referendum 186 of the 196 Labour MPs declared they would campaign to remain in EU. Corbyn although Leader of the Party was simply not in a position to carry his Party to enter the 2019 Election on an outright Pro Brexit Manifesto Here is what the 2019 Labour Party Manifesto actually said they would do on Brexit if Elected Labour would rip up Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, negotiate a new one with the EU within three months, and then put the deal to a referendum within six months of coming to power. The referendum would not be advisory but “legally binding”. A deal would involve a “comprehensive” UK-wide customs arrangement with the EU; “close alignment with the single market”, and “dynamic alignment” on workers’ rights and the environment which guarantees keeping pace with any future EU protections “as a minimum”. Under Labour, the UK would also continue to participate in the EU funding programmes on science and environment and scrap Operation Yellowhammer contingency planning. Interestingly Corbyn himself refused to say if he would campaign for or against Brexit in a second Referendum The alternative The Conservative Party presented was Boris Johnson's Oven Ready Turkey Deal You can decide which would have been a better outcome In the 2016 Referendum 186 of the 196 Labour MPs declared they would campaign to remain in EU. Corbyn although Leader of the Party was simply not in a position to carry his Party to enter the 2019 Election on an outright Pro Brexit Manifesto considering leave won in 2016 it would have been very reasonable and in fact a mandate for Labour to enter on a pro brexit manifesto what we got was "tory deal shit, i will get a better one, i will put that better one to a new referendum but I wont actually support it" that is why he is not in no 10 now, you'd have thought he'd have learned when May beat him by a rizla I have reread what the interchange was 15 months ago and this is my interpretation, apologies if I misrepresent in my paraphrasing My point 15 months ago and now is that the PLP then and now are essentially Pro-EU although Corbyn himself was instinctively Brexit You said 15 months ago that if Corbyn backed Brexit he would have been in No 10. I disagree because he couldn’t carry the PLP to support that position and he wouldn't have remained Leader never mind No 10 You said and agreed with BigJohn that Corbyn was a Radical but in order to influence you need to gain Power. I completely agree with this. I think the Establishment was pitted against Corbyn to ever be elected PM You said the Working Man voted Brexit in the belief that Brexit would make UK more equitable. I again completely agree with the reasoning but in my view this was flawed as it did anything but. You went on to say that for too long Governments have been too London centric which I again agree with that and trace this back to Thatcher whose mission was to break the Unions and neglect Industry in favour of Services ( now about 80% of GDP and same percentage in employment) centred in London. One of the prime motivations of Brexit was to free the City from EU Financial Regulation introduced by EU in the aftermath of 2008. Levelling UP came much later and was as equally meaningless as Take Back Control both just slogans without substance, a bit like a fart and both leave a bad smell. You also said 15 months ago that it would have been incumbent on Labour to adopt Brexit after the Referendum as it gave them a Mandate to do so. But the Margin of Victory in Referendum was equally as thin as a Rizzla which you correctly said the 2017 GE was. This reason the 2017 GE was as close as 2016 Referendum was because the Country was still equally divided. By 2019 the Country was sick to death of the debate and a Charlatan Johnson convinced people that he had a ready made plan out of the nightmare. Johnson believed in Power, for himself, not Brexit. He had scant knowledge of the detail nor wanted to know which gave him the freedom to lie copiously. Mr Coke has just posted about the size of the Cake, no Not the one that was thrust at Bozo, but the size of the Economy. I totally agree with his post. Without Economic Growth whichever Government is in power can only distribute the amount available, I believe Labour will make better choices but without Growth its like 2 Bald men fighting over a comb. UK Economy almost uniquely of Developed Economies has been in Sleep Mode since 2008 Financial Crash. Mr Coke and I disagree why or even in his case if at all. In many respects this is to Labour/Starmers advantage because Conservatives are offering nothing new other than the latest gimmick of protecting us from Armageddon. The reason people are mostly reluctant but apathetic is Starmer is not offering anything radical because he is naturally cautious. Ironically if Corbyn were Leader of Labour now he would probably win a bigger majority.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on May 28, 2024 11:29:20 GMT
People like to imagine there's no complexity to politics and government and that you can just ride in on your white horse, change all the power structures, convince the wealthy to share more and everyone lives happily ever after. It's a fairytale. It will take decades and decades to prise power and influence from the aristocracy and the ultra wealthy. Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people. The only naive person here Dave is yourself. "Convince the wealthy" - The ruling party doesn't ask for permission to raise taxes you weapon. There's no convincing required. They are voted in to represent the many not the few. "It will take decades and decades" - How many Dave? We've had a century of the same 2 parties. Just another 40 years of Duopoly for change? Or how many? Or maybe if you keep voting for neoliberalism you keep getting neoliberalism? I know people like me don't understand the complexity. So maybe you can explain the complexity around neoliberalism and what it means to vote for parties which believe in this philosophy, and how we just need decades of it and a magic wand will fix everything. Or maybe what we vote for is what we will get? "Starmer will at least do what he can within the confines of real life to try and make life better for ordinary, working people." - based on what Dave? Scrapping uni fees? Gone. Green 28 billion investment? Gone. Abolishing the house of lords? Gone. Bringing energy and water back under public control? Gone. Giving workers a better deal? Gone. Scrapping private school charitable status? Gone. Ending two child benefit limit? Gone. Increasing income tax for top 5%? Gone. Defend freedom of movement? Gone. Abolishing universal credit? Gone. Stop NHS outsourcing? Gone. Increase digital tax for big tech? Gone. Introduce rent controls? Gone. Stop sale of arms to Saudia Arabia? Gone. Introduce a wealth tax? Gone. Reinstate banker bonuses caps? Gone. So the person leading the party which said it would do all of the above and has u turned on every single one we should trust because he just needs to convince the 1% to do it all and if we keep doing the same thing we've done for decades that in a few decades time it will finally work? You spent 15 years voting tory every election before the last. The party which allowed inequality to thrive and never prioritised the young or the poor. The fact you're now a keen Starmer supporter shows the move to the right which has happened to labour. This mess we now have is what you vote for. So I won't take any lectures from a tory who loves Starmer. If anything that is testament to just how far right this labour party has went. I first voted Labour in 2017. So Corbyn must have lurched the party to the right long before Starmer using your logic.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 28, 2024 11:47:03 GMT
In the 2016 Referendum 186 of the 196 Labour MPs declared they would campaign to remain in EU. Corbyn although Leader of the Party was simply not in a position to carry his Party to enter the 2019 Election on an outright Pro Brexit Manifesto considering leave won in 2016 it would have been very reasonable and in fact a mandate for Labour to enter on a pro brexit manifesto what we got was "tory deal shit, i will get a better one, i will put that better one to a new referendum but I wont actually support it" that is why he is not in no 10 now, you'd have thought he'd have learned when May beat him by a rizla I have reread what the interchange was 15 months ago and this is my interpretation, apologies if I misrepresent in my paraphrasing My point 15 months ago and now is that the PLP then and now are essentially Pro-EU although Corbyn himself was instinctively Brexit You said 15 months ago that if Corbyn backed Brexit he would have been in No 10. I disagree because he couldn’t carry the PLP to support that position and he wouldn't have remained Leader never mind No 10 You said and agreed with BigJohn that Corbyn was a Radical but in order to influence you need to gain Power. I completely agree with this. I think the Establishment was pitted against Corbyn to ever be elected PM You said the Working Man voted Brexit in the belief that Brexit would make UK more equitable. I again completely agree with the reasoning but in my view this was flawed as it did anything but. You went on to say that for too long Governments have been too London centric which I again agree with that and trace this back to Thatcher whose mission was to break the Unions and neglect Industry in favour of Services ( now about 80% of GDP and same percentage in employment) centred in London. One of the prime motivations of Brexit was to free the City from EU Financial Regulation introduced by EU in the aftermath of 2008. Levelling UP came much later and was as equally meaningless as Take Back Control both just slogans without substance, a bit like a fart and both leave a bad smell. You also said 15 months ago that it would have been incumbent on Labour to adopt Brexit after the Referendum as it gave them a Mandate to do so. But the Margin of Victory in Referendum was equally as thin as a Rizzla which you correctly said the 2017 GE was. This reason the 2017 GE was as close as 2016 Referendum was because the Country was still equally divided. By 2019 the Country was sick to death of the debate and a Charlatan Johnson convinced people that he had a ready made plan out of the nightmare. Johnson believed in Power, for himself, not Brexit. He had scant knowledge of the detail nor wanted to know which gave him the freedom to lie copiously. Mr Coke has just posted about the size of the Cake, no Not the one that was thrust at Bozo, but the size of the Economy. I totally agree with his post. Without Economic Growth whichever Government is in power can only distribute the amount available, I believe Labour will make better choices but without Growth its like 2 Bald men fighting over a comb. UK Economy almost uniquely of Developed Economies has been in Sleep Mode since 2008 Financial Crash. Mr Coke and I disagree why or even in his case if at all. In many respects this is to Labour/Starmers advantage because Conservatives are offering nothing new other than the latest gimmick of protecting us from Armageddon. The reason people are mostly reluctant but apathetic is Starmer is not offering anything radical because he is naturally cautious. Ironically if Corbyn were Leader of Labour now he would probably win a bigger majority. a fair response mate. i only brought it up because somebody liked one of my posts on the subject not to be a dick I think the Establishment was pitted against Corbyn to ever be elected PM - My point is he didnt do himself no favours when it came to his brexit stance. that is what cost him the election. the corbyn movement at the time was in full flow but this allowed boris to "get brexit done" brexit won by a rizla. winning was winning he had that mandate and his deal could have been based on that. the guy had to run on a manifesto of "get brexit done better than boris" he would have walked it
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on May 28, 2024 12:40:33 GMT
I have reread what the interchange was 15 months ago and this is my interpretation, apologies if I misrepresent in my paraphrasing My point 15 months ago and now is that the PLP then and now are essentially Pro-EU although Corbyn himself was instinctively Brexit You said 15 months ago that if Corbyn backed Brexit he would have been in No 10. I disagree because he couldn’t carry the PLP to support that position and he wouldn't have remained Leader never mind No 10 You said and agreed with BigJohn that Corbyn was a Radical but in order to influence you need to gain Power. I completely agree with this. I think the Establishment was pitted against Corbyn to ever be elected PM You said the Working Man voted Brexit in the belief that Brexit would make UK more equitable. I again completely agree with the reasoning but in my view this was flawed as it did anything but. You went on to say that for too long Governments have been too London centric which I again agree with that and trace this back to Thatcher whose mission was to break the Unions and neglect Industry in favour of Services ( now about 80% of GDP and same percentage in employment) centred in London. One of the prime motivations of Brexit was to free the City from EU Financial Regulation introduced by EU in the aftermath of 2008. Levelling UP came much later and was as equally meaningless as Take Back Control both just slogans without substance, a bit like a fart and both leave a bad smell. You also said 15 months ago that it would have been incumbent on Labour to adopt Brexit after the Referendum as it gave them a Mandate to do so. But the Margin of Victory in Referendum was equally as thin as a Rizzla which you correctly said the 2017 GE was. This reason the 2017 GE was as close as 2016 Referendum was because the Country was still equally divided. By 2019 the Country was sick to death of the debate and a Charlatan Johnson convinced people that he had a ready made plan out of the nightmare. Johnson believed in Power, for himself, not Brexit. He had scant knowledge of the detail nor wanted to know which gave him the freedom to lie copiously. Mr Coke has just posted about the size of the Cake, no Not the one that was thrust at Bozo, but the size of the Economy. I totally agree with his post. Without Economic Growth whichever Government is in power can only distribute the amount available, I believe Labour will make better choices but without Growth its like 2 Bald men fighting over a comb. UK Economy almost uniquely of Developed Economies has been in Sleep Mode since 2008 Financial Crash. Mr Coke and I disagree why or even in his case if at all. In many respects this is to Labour/Starmers advantage because Conservatives are offering nothing new other than the latest gimmick of protecting us from Armageddon. The reason people are mostly reluctant but apathetic is Starmer is not offering anything radical because he is naturally cautious. Ironically if Corbyn were Leader of Labour now he would probably win a bigger majority. a fair response mate. i only brought it up because somebody liked one of my posts on the subject not to be a dick I think the Establishment was pitted against Corbyn to ever be elected PM - My point is he didnt do himself no favours when it came to his brexit stance. that is what cost him the election. the corbyn movement at the time was in full flow but this allowed boris to "get brexit done" brexit won by a rizla. winning was winning he had that mandate and his deal could have been based on that. the guy had to run on a manifesto of "get brexit done better than boris" he would have walked it The only Brexit stance that screwed corbyn was listening to the duplicitous back stabbing wanker starmer Who spent all his time undermining the biggest ever democratic vote in the country’s history
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on May 28, 2024 14:30:22 GMT
The growth of the UK economy faltered when the UK joined the EEC in the 1970s. The only time there was significant growth since then was during the Thatcher years when she was smashing the unions , using high unemployment to keep wages low, and offering substantial tax breaks to Far Eastern companies to set up in the UK and use it as a base to manufacture and sell into Europe. But when those tax breaks stopped, those FE companies started to leave, and all the "silver had been sold" to balance the government's budget, from c. 1988 the average growth rate of the UK economy has steadily declined for 3 decades. www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-rateThe Blair/Brown administration kept the economy flat-lining by allowing a massive increase in debt, both a huge increase in personal debt on credit, and a huge increase in bank loans much of which turned out to be toxic. So when the inevitable crash came the UK was impacted more than other countries. They also opened the flood gates to east European cheap labour, so companies failed to invest. I well remember it being said in 2010 that the GE may have been a " good one to lose", the state if the economy was so bad. This GE is a different matter, the economy is coming out of a mild recession, we have full employment, and there is a bow-wave of investment in energy projects, green projects, automation/robotics, AI, and huge demand for housing and office space with potentially falling interest rates, and real average wage growth. tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/real-earnings-including-bonuses
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 28, 2024 19:10:24 GMT
Where are the women in the audience?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 28, 2024 19:13:37 GMT
So Diane now has her whip restored 🤣.
First thing Starmer needs to do in Westminster is install a roundabout. Will help with all these u turns.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 19:38:07 GMT
Where are the women in the audience? Looks to be a blonde one immediately behind Raynor, though it’s never safe to assume anymore, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2024 10:54:55 GMT
Starmer’s plan to increase working hours (voluntary) with paid overtime seems very logical to me. It will cost more initially, for sure. The thing is with healthcare though, people sitting on waiting lists for long periods develop more severe conditions that are ultimately more costly in the long term.
Preventive medicine is the goal but if they won’t commit the NHs to that, then diagnosing and treating conditions quickly is essential.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 29, 2024 17:30:43 GMT
Seems very convenient that this has happened to the left wing Labour MP in question.....
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 29, 2024 17:34:01 GMT
Apsana Begum is nailed on to be next......
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 29, 2024 17:46:16 GMT
Starmer’s plan to increase working hours (voluntary) with paid overtime seems very logical to me. It will cost more initially, for sure. The thing is with healthcare though, people sitting on waiting lists for long periods develop more severe conditions that are ultimately more costly in the long term. Preventive medicine is the goal but if they won’t commit the NHs to that, then diagnosing and treating conditions quickly is essential.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 29, 2024 18:22:58 GMT
Good for her, I'm no fan but she has been treated abysmally.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 29, 2024 18:36:00 GMT
Apsana Begum is nailed on to be next...... Maybe not mate....
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 29, 2024 18:46:18 GMT
Apsana Begum is nailed on to be next...... Maybe not mate.... Maybe Neil Coyle will be thrown into the mix. Got to do a right leaning one so they can claim its not factional.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 29, 2024 20:16:03 GMT
Fantastic speech
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 29, 2024 20:38:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 29, 2024 21:04:21 GMT
Very sad to see. Reports say she has type 2 diabetes but the symptoms look more like parkinson's disease to my amateur eye.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on May 29, 2024 21:17:59 GMT
[/quote]Very sad to see.
Reports say she has type 2 diabetes but the symptoms look more like parkinson's disease to my amateur eye. [/quote]
Totally agree on your diagnosis Dr Gods but it should be her decision if she wants to run again or not
Whatever people may think of her she deserves respect. Shoddy.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 29, 2024 21:32:38 GMT
Luke akehurst is a piece of shit. A truly awful person.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on May 29, 2024 21:35:25 GMT
Very sad to see. Reports say she has type 2 diabetes but the symptoms look more like parkinson's disease to my amateur eye. Thought the same myself about parkinsons. But remember this woman has been through alot recently too, that could just be anger and anxiety. She's the most personally abused politician in Westminster.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 29, 2024 23:15:19 GMT
Apsana Begum is nailed on to be next...... Maybe not mate....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2024 0:27:33 GMT
Starmer’s plan to increase working hours (voluntary) with paid overtime seems very logical to me. It will cost more initially, for sure. The thing is with healthcare though, people sitting on waiting lists for long periods develop more severe conditions that are ultimately more costly in the long term. Preventive medicine is the goal but if they won’t commit the NHs to that, then diagnosing and treating conditions quickly is essential. I think it’s true, to a point. Ask people to work more for the same pay and they burn out quick. Give them the opportunity to do more work and be well-compensated and some will seem pretty happy all of a sudden. At least, that’s my experience living tangentially to the medical profession anyways. That’s not saying that their burnout isn’t real either. However, money is a decent motivator and conversely no one feels good being told that they need to do more and more to justify the same salary.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 30, 2024 4:33:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 30, 2024 6:12:35 GMT
Labour are making the Tory’s a viable alternative 😂
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 30, 2024 6:49:04 GMT
Luke akehurst is a piece of shit. A truly awful person. He's behind most or all of the recent expulsions of socialist MP's.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on May 30, 2024 6:51:40 GMT
|
|