news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Starmer is in many ways Labour’s Theresa May.

he's got a better idea of how to win! don't think we'll see him dancing!

[steviewevie]

8 hours ago, mattiloy said:

Starmer is in many ways Labour’s Theresa May.

he's Labour's Cameron (if he wins).

Corbyn was Labour's Michael Howard.

[steviewevie]

More room for big tax cuts.

[steviewevie]

everyone wants a two state solution except the actual people in charge.

[lost]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

everyone wants a two state solution except the actual people in charge.

No need for states after the apocalypse I guess:

 

[steviewevie]

 

[Nobody Interesting]

19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

The plan has been watered down so much it is now H20 squared and was always going to be the first part of their plans to 'not happen'................ and before anyone says, they have changed policy already and yes 2030 is still their goal - how can you get goals when you have nothing to aim at them?

Labour - becoming more and more like the Tories, just less nasty.

[mattiloy]

Idiot Streeting.

1) so the solution is presumably to spend a roughly equivalent amount on care in the community - 0bn saved

2) the solution is presumably to spend a lot more on training new staff (whilst also paying recruitment agencies in the meantime) - an initial 0bn saved (savings possible perhaps after the length of the labour parliament)

3) agree that outsourcing is more expensive and less effective than insourcing but spend will probs be roughly equivalent for the first years during transition before dropping a bit, maybe to 60% of the quoted sum. In any case - an initial 0bn saved

4) 32mil - fair enough.

5) Centralising supply of equipment a fine Idea but likely to end up in the middle, rather than at the bottom of the price range so if they’re quoting 1bn in savings, halve it.

 

I think all of this is worth doing, but its not going to free up much money in the immediate term when the NHS is in fairly acute need. Get the chequebook out Wesley!!!

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Idiot Streeting.

1) so the solution is presumably to spend a roughly equivalent amount on care in the community - 0bn saved

2) the solution is presumably to spend a lot more on training new staff (whilst also paying recruitment agencies in the meantime) - an initial 0bn saved (savings possible perhaps after the length of the labour parliament)

3) agree that outsourcing is more expensive and less effective than insourcing but spend will probs be roughly equivalent for the first years during transition before dropping a bit, maybe to 60% of the quoted sum. In any case - an initial 0bn saved

4) 32mil - fair enough.

5) Centralising supply of equipment a fine Idea but likely to end up in the middle, rather than at the bottom of the price range so if they’re quoting 1bn in savings, halve it.

 

I think all of this is worth doing, but its not going to free up much money in the immediate term when the NHS is in fairly acute need. Get the chequebook out Wesley!!!

Yeah all these magical savings that current lot don't know about...

[lost]

I'd say Streeting is spot on and its the main reason I'll be voting labour next time. Labour are doing the right thing looking at the Australian system. You can see a little plateu around "austerity years"  2011 - 2013ish apart from that spending has just got straight up in real terms and as far as I can see hasn't provided a better service.

 

[kaosmark2]

12 hours ago, mattiloy said:

You’re right, but only because Corbyn overperformed in 2017. Corbyn’s red wall vote in 2019 tracked in most places with the Labour vote in 2015. A return to trend.

Examining the 2015 vote in my home constituency (red wall, labour) and those around it - it seems that Miliband was lucky then that ukip split the tory vote. Otherwise the tumbling of the red wall would have happened then.

Theres also a pattern of Lib dem going from a consistent 10-15% in the 2000s to being virtually non existent after the coalition.

I guess that lib dem vote got divided between labour and tories in 2015. Then probs in 2017 they got behind Corbyn a bit more and the ukip lot stayed at home, then in 2019 the lib dems stayed at home and the ukip lot swung behind Boris.

I’d guess that the morale amongst the Brexit mob and the stomach for another fight has to be on the wane after almost a decade of it, whilst the liberals have been pissing their knickers over brexit and boris and all that for years now and will come out in force.

So my prediction is that Labour’s vote in terms of numbers stays pretty static (2019 + liberals - left wing folk who stay at home) but then the tories’ numbers will fall off a cliff. So who knows in terms of swing - that depends on the turnout and the performance of the minor parties. But quite big.

Its as in the bag as anything has ever been in the bag. It would take a phenomenal f**k up to lose it from here… 😁

Vote share performance is meaningless under FPTP. And while the Tories might have gained a few "red wall" seats in 2015 without UKIP, they wouldn't have taken the 80ish Johnson did.

Labour gained votes in 2017 where they were meaningless.

[kaosmark2]

5 minutes ago, lost said:

I'd say Streeting is spot on and its the main reason I'll be voting labour next time. Labour are doing the right thing looking at the Australian system. You can see a little plateu around "austerity years"  2011 - 2013ish apart from that spending has just got straight up in real terms and as far as I can see hasn't provided a better service.

 

Take out corrupt outsourced contracts to private firms and the NHS budget isn't actually going up.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

30 minutes ago, lost said:

I'd say Streeting is spot on and its the main reason I'll be voting labour next time. Labour are doing the right thing looking at the Australian system. You can see a little plateu around "austerity years"  2011 - 2013ish apart from that spending has just got straight up in real terms and as far as I can see hasn't provided a better service.

 

weren't those recent increases due to covid backlog etc?

In the end we have an increasingly aging and sick population...yes maybe money could be spent more wisely, but it's not as if demand isn't going to increase (unless life spans continue to decrease).

[Crazyfool01]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

Take out corrupt outsourced contracts to private firms and the NHS budget isn't actually going up.

a shed load of recent spending  has gone on dodgy PPE and test and trace scheme

[Guest]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

Vote share performance is meaningless under FPTP. And while the Tories might have gained a few "red wall" seats in 2015 without UKIP, they wouldn't have taken the 80ish Johnson did.

Labour gained votes in 2017 where they were meaningless.

Its classic Conbynista behaviour to claim that 2017 was some triumphant result when in reality Labour lost the election and couldn’t beat Theresa May. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Its classic Conbynista behaviour to claim that 2017 was some triumphant result when in reality Labour lost the election and couldn’t beat Theresa May. 

I remember it felt like a victory at the time. That election could be analysed to death. Labour doing much better than expected showed many in country actually are open to left wing policies, bigger state, bigger spending, taxing higher earners etc. Labour would have done better under another leader. A few more weeks and Labour would have won. Many people voted labour because they didn't actually think they had a chance of winning. May cocked up with what turned out to be a unpopular wealth tax to pay for social care during an election cycle and then uturned and said she didn't uturn, and was just total crap at campaigning. etc etc. On top of it all was brexit and the country was a bit all over the shop.

But in the end Labour performed a hell of a lot better than many had expected, the polls don't lie.

[lost]

Looking at that graph. isn't May 2017 when the Tories announced the dementia tax?

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

Looking at that graph. isn't May 2017 when the Tories announced the dementia tax?

possibly, that was when wheels started to come off...and the whole maybot thing. But loss of polling for Tories doesn't match the increase for Labour.

[steviewevie]

Anyway, you could argue that 2017 result was a bit of a disaster in long run. Hard brexit and a disastrous 2019 election result (for Labour/LibDem).

[lost]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

possibly, that was when wheels started to come off...and the whole maybot thing. But loss of polling for Tories doesn't match the increase for Labour.

UKIP does though as well. I just dont think you can argue people were voting for left wing policies when they were switching to labour for lower taxes.

That in itself causes the issue if they had won Corbyns "free lunch" of an uncosted manifesto would of unravelled and been a complete mess.

Edited January 23 by lost

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, lost said:

UKIP does though as well. I just dont think you can argue people were voting for left wing policies when the were switching to labour for lower taxes.

Admittedly not that significant, but a number of life long non-voters (anarchist, sub culture, traveler types) voted for the first time. For Labour of course.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, lost said:

UKIP does though as well. I just dont think you can argue people were voting for left wing policies when the were switching to labour for lower taxes.

That in itself causes the issue if they had won Corbyns "free lunch" of an uncosted manifesto would of unravelled and been a complete mess.

it was costed, and would have been higher taxes for higher earners. It was a sexy manifesto and would have been a lot better than the shite we've ended up with.

• Scrap student tuition fees
• Nationalisation of England's nine water companies.
• Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)
• Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above
• More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
• Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes
• End to zero hours contracts
• Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
• Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000
• Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West".

 

[lost]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

 a number of life long non-voters voted for the first time.

Apparently the same thing happened with brexit.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

Admittedly not that significant, but a number of life long non-voters (anarchist, sub culture, traveler types) voted for the first time. For Labour of course.

anarchists voting?