New Tory Leader

[Well b back 3,220]

After todays figures re ambulance times, I hope this has now shown why the NHS are not just striking for pay, but for working conditions and indeed to save the NHS itself.
I have just in general conversation spoke to many over the last 3 days. One nurse told me they now want us to work more productively and harder, so why don’t they live on tv ask a nurse after their 12 hour shift, that finished after 14 hours, to work longer that day and harder the next day. 
An ambulance driver told me it’s interesting that they want to put in minimum standards on a strike day. The bit he found interesting though was based on Sunak’s words, as there won’t be minimum standards on non strike days, the service will be better on a strike day, if indeed it was possible to uphold said standards.

I say sack a nurse or an ambulance driver, possibly even a train worker and the government will be brought down in days.

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Except that is precisely what they did.

No doubt you’ll find a nice little quote where one of them has said don’t vote brexit. But they didn’t come out against it hard enough, Corbyn was heavily criticised for not really making his position clear, MPs literally quit because of the party’s stance on brexit, and the whole “we’ll respect the result but…” phase was trying to pander to everyone and failing. You might disagree but the reality is that’s what lots of people think regardless of your personal thoughts.

[Aggy 755]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

Agree with you here. And @Aggy too above raises very pertinent points.  I posted before (on the Brexit thread because of the comparison between EU countries on health) about how Germany has been trying to tackle the care / health interface for over 30 years - through cross party discussions and policy formulation. Reading about how they are tackling their health trends reminded me how they also tackle their employment challenges (by linking vocational requirement, future recruitment needs and skills acquisition to their school system. I am so impressed by this kind of public policy collaboration. It aims to look at problems for the long term. You never solve anything completely because change is constant but it shows the values of a civilised country.

I'm a big.supporter of the NHS but I know it as huge challenges. Like you and your thoughts on rail YF.

I don't believe people will.simply vote Labour by a kind of default. I believe though that Labour are starting to work through what policies are needed to put right the last 13 years. We ought not (ever) forget that the funding decisions made in a number of areas in life, social and economic, by the present administration have been intentional. Their policies have been a political choice. The damage is now emerging. Story by story. Whether YF we are in terminal decline I am not well informed enough to have an opinion on that. But a decline it certainly is. I never thought I would see nurses and doctors striking or life expectancy actually reduce!

Don’t know that much about the German system but don’t they effectively have two healthcare insurance type systems depending on how much you earn/which you choose to opt into?

[Well b back 3,220]

44 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Don’t know that much about the German system but don’t they effectively have two healthcare insurance type systems depending on how much you earn/which you choose to opt into?

You get charged 3% of your salary ( everyone ).

[sonyc 5,529]

53 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Don’t know that much about the German system but don’t they effectively have two healthcare insurance type systems depending on how much you earn/which you choose to opt into?

This was the article I read Aggy. 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/08/sick-man-of-europe-why-the-crisis-ridden-nhs-is-falling-apart?

 

And I read a bit more....link here for interest.

https://www.expatica.com/de/healthcare/healthcare-basics/german-healthcare-system-103359/#overview

[Aggy 755]

21 minutes ago, Well b back said:

You get charged 3% of your salary ( everyone ).

Sony’s article suggests you have to if you earn under 57k. If you earn over that you can choose to opt out and get your own private insurance, which (according to the article) usually covers more things than the state one. So the wealthier can opt out of the system that benefits others. 

[Aggy 755]

30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

 

Also, off topic and slightly randomly, especially given we’ve exchanged a number of posts over years on the covid thread etc….. how do you say your username? I’ve always read it as “sony-c” but tonight looked at your post and for the first time thought “sonic with a y”

Edited January 12, 2023 by Aggy

[sonyc 5,529]

11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Also, off topic and slightly randomly, especially given we’ve exchanged a number of posts over years on the covid thread etc….. how do you say your username? I’ve always read it as “sony-c” but tonight looked at your post and for the first time thought “sonic with a y”

It's simply a mnemonic Aggy!

 Steady On Now's Your Chance.

And it was indeed a simple play on Sonic (when I set up my account in 2004 my young sons liked Sonic The Hedgehog....🙂 so there it was and I still had the Norwich connection with a line from OTBC)

[Aggy 755]

4 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's simply a mnemonic Aggy!

 Steady On Now's Your Chance.

And it was indeed a simple play on Sonic (when I set up my account in 2004 my young sons liked Sonic The Hedgehog....🙂 so there it was and I still had the Norwich connection with a line from OTBC)

Very good - in that case I don’t feel too silly for reading it as Sony-c. Now I’ve seen “sonic” it looks by far the more obvious option. Funny how the mind works!

[Well b back 3,220]

57 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Sony’s article suggests you have to if you earn under 57k. If you earn over that you can choose to opt out and get your own private insurance, which (according to the article) usually covers more things than the state one. So the wealthier can opt out of the system that benefits others. 

Our government haven’t got the balls to do anything.

 

[Well b back 3,220]

As all our recent 3 PMS have said we are ‘ World Leaders ‘ in the climate, yet more b******.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057

[sonyc 5,529]

54 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Our government haven’t got the balls to do anything.

 

They won't even admit there is a crisis. On BBC QT now. But the audience have made up their minds.

So many people know folk who work in health services / NHS and therefore are regularly told what the problems are.

No Tory MP can honestly face this up.

Edit:

I've copied this recent article too (comments are always useful to read). @Aggy it might be of interest too as it raises exactly the points you made.

https://unherd.com/2023/01/the-slow-death-of-the-nhs/

Last paragraph quoted below...(a very sad indictment)

 

The generation now lying on floors with broken hips for 12 hours, or in hospital corridors with dementia for days, in a limbo of triage with no end in sight, are the generation who trusted in the post-war social contract. They paid their taxes and National Insurance with the expectation that the state would be there for them in their hour of need. That contract has been ripped up and thrown back at them in pieces. There’s a bitter irony in the fact that the NHS is trying to move away from treating acute conditions, and towards prevention by promoting long-term health: somebody needs to do that for the NHS itself.

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,303]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

No doubt you’ll find a nice little quote where one of them has said don’t vote brexit. But they didn’t come out against it hard enough, Corbyn was heavily criticised for not really making his position clear, MPs literally quit because of the party’s stance on brexit, and the whole “we’ll respect the result but…” phase was trying to pander to everyone and failing. You might disagree but the reality is that’s what lots of people think regardless of your personal thoughts.

No need to quote one Labour MP saying "don't vote Brexit". Corbyn joined Cameron on the platform at the launch of the "Remain" campaign, and the party's official anti-Brexit position was formulated and delivered by Starmer on many occasions during the referendum (as the briefest research would have informed you if you had bothered to do any). The 2019 Labour Party Manifesto also stated very clearly what the Party position was after the leave vote:

The Final Say on Brexit

Labour will give the people the final say on Brexit. Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain. A Labour government will implement whatever the people decide.

Only a Labour government will put this decision in the hands of the people to give you the final say. This will be a legally binding referendum and we will implement the people’s decision immediately.

The Tories have failed for three years to get Brexit sorted, in a shambles of repeated delays and uncertainty. Whether people voted Leave or Remain in 2016, people and businesses are crying out for politicians in Westminster to finally focus on the wider challenges we face.

Labour rules out a no-deal Brexit, and we will end the scandal of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted on no-deal preparations. No deal has never been a viable option. It would do enormous harm to jobs, rights, security and to our NHS.

Labour has led the campaign to stop a no-deal Brexit. A majority Tory government would pose a renewed threat of the UK crashing out with no deal. Only a Labour government can prevent this.

We will rip up the deeply flawed deal negotiated by Boris Johnson.

We opposed his deal precisely because it would do such harm to workers’ rights, environmental protections and to our manufacturing industry. Boris Johnson’s deal is even worse than Theresa May’s: it would leave the UK £70 billion worse off by 2029; it would give the green light to deregulation undermining UK manufacturing; and it would leave our NHS at the mercy of a trade deal with Donald Trump. This sell-out deal is unacceptable to Labour.

Labour will secure a new Brexit deal – one that protects jobs, rights and the environment, avoids a hard border in Northern Ireland and protects the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. We will also ensure that there is no change in the status or sovereignty of Gibraltar.

Our deal will be based on the principles we have set out over the last two years.

It will include:

• A permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union, which is vital to protect our manufacturing industry and allows the UK to benefit from joint UK-EU trade deals, and is backed by businesses and trade unions.
• Close alignment with the Single Market – ensuring we have a strong future economic relationship with the EU that can support UK businesses.
• Dynamic alignment on workers’ rights, consumer rights and environmental protections so that UK standards keep pace across Europe as a minimum, allowing the UK to lead the way, not fall behind.
• Continued participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in such vital areas of co-operation as the environment, scientific research and culture.
• Clear commitments on future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and shared databases, making people safer at home and abroad.

Labour will secure a revised Withdrawal Agreement that provides legal protection for citizens’ rights, meets our international obligations – particularly with regard to the Good Friday Agreement – and ensures an appropriate transition period to allow businesses and citizens to adapt to any new arrangements.

We will also secure robust and legally binding protections for workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protections, and ensure level-playing- field protections are maintained. Labour will never accept an outcome that puts rights and standards at risk.

Once we have secured this new deal we will put it to a legally binding referendum alongside the option of remaining in the EU. This will take place within the first six months of a Labour government.

Labour is the only party that can heal the harmful divisions in our communities and address the devastation caused by 10 years of austerity, ruthlessly imposed on society by the Tories and Lib Dems. While other parties have exacerbated polarisation, defining everyone by how they voted in the 2016 EU Referendum, Labour has consistently reached across this divide.

Only Labour will deliver a final say referendum.

Only Labour will offer the choice of remaining in the EU, or leaving with a sensible deal.

This final say referendum will not be a re-run of 2016. It will be legally binding. Labour will implement the decision of the British people immediately.

Labour will introduce legislation to facilitate this referendum and to provide legal certainty and stability following the result.

We will introduce a Withdrawal Agreement and Referendum Bill, providing the legal basis to conduct and implement the outcome of the referendum.

We will scrap the Brexit legislation currently proposed by the Tories and introduce new legislation that is in line with Labour’s priorities and principles to protect our economy, trade, jobs and rights.

This will include new legislation to ensure support and certainty for UK farmers, our fishing industry and protection for our natural environment.

Labour recognises the huge benefits of immigration to our country. Many British citizens have benefited from freedom of movement, which has given them the opportunity to study, work or retire abroad. Likewise our public services and our industry have benefited from skilled workers coming here.

Labour believes that citizens’ rights should never have been used as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations, and recognises the huge anxiety this has caused for the three million EU nationals living in the UK and the 1.2 million UK nationals who have made their home elsewhere in the EU.

We will end the uncertainty created by the EU Settlement Scheme by granting EU nationals the automatic right to continue living and working in the UK. This new declaratory system will allow EU nationals the chance to register for proof of status if they wish, but will mean they no longer have to apply to continue living and working in this country.

This will help ensure reciprocal treatment for UK citizens living in the EU. It will also prevent a repeat of the shameful Windrush scandal and avoid unnecessarily criminalising hundreds of thousands of EU nationals.

If in a referendum the British people decide to remain in the EU, this must not mean accepting the status quo. Labour will work with partners across Europe to make the case for radical reform of the EU – in particular to ensure that its collective strength is focused on tackling the climate emergency, tax evasion and ending austerity and inequality.

The EU needs a new political direction and, if the people decide the UK should remain in the EU, Labour will lead the way to ensure that change.

For too long a politically inflicted wave of austerity has damaged communities across Britain and across Europe.

The most vulnerable members in our society have suffered, while the super-rich continue to be rewarded by a system that allows them to thrive at the expense of the many.

This must change. If the country decides to remain, a Labour government will take a different approach and strive to ensure that the EU works for people across our communities. The EU should focus on policies that value investment, protect public services and make those who have the most pay their fair share.

If people decide to leave, a Labour government will work constructively with the EU on vital issues of mutual interest and to the mutual benefit of the UK and EU. But we will leave the EU.

Most importantly, under a Labour government, you will get the final say on Brexit.

 

I wonder how many people would now have loved an opportunity to vote on the very clear and very sensible deal outlined in the manifesto above?

While you contemplate this, do feel free to list all those MPs who you claim, "literally quit because of the party's stance on Brexit".

Edited January 13, 2023 by horsefly

[Herman 9,780]

7 hours ago, sonyc said:

They won't even admit there is a crisis. On BBC QT now. But the audience have made up their minds.

So many people know folk who work in health services / NHS and therefore are regularly told what the problems are.

No Tory MP can honestly face this up.

Edit:

I've copied this recent article too (comments are always useful to read). @Aggy it might be of interest too as it raises exactly the points you made.

https://unherd.com/2023/01/the-slow-death-of-the-nhs/

Last paragraph quoted below...(a very sad indictment)

 

The generation now lying on floors with broken hips for 12 hours, or in hospital corridors with dementia for days, in a limbo of triage with no end in sight, are the generation who trusted in the post-war social contract. They paid their taxes and National Insurance with the expectation that the state would be there for them in their hour of need. That contract has been ripped up and thrown back at them in pieces. There’s a bitter irony in the fact that the NHS is trying to move away from treating acute conditions, and towards prevention by promoting long-term health: somebody needs to do that for the NHS itself.

 

First time I'd watched QT for a very long time and the Tory position got a mighty kicking, even from the right leaning journalist. It is unsustainable and whatever they come out with isn't believed. As you say, with the NHS being a behemoth, everyone knows someone that works in it and hears the stories from the horses mouth. I think the same will be for teachers if they decide to come out as well. (Not likely if yesterday's vote is anything to go by, unfortunately.)

[horsefly 4,303]

I don't suppose the following is connected in any way to the fact that the Tory Party relied for so long on the donations of Russian oligarchs:

Ten oligarchs hit with sanctions for their links to Russia's war in Ukraine had taken advantage of the U.K.'s former visa program for people with high net worth, Home Secretary Suella Braverman has revealed.

The Tier 1 investor route was closed last year, partly in response to concerns that Russians were abusing these so-called golden visas.

A "small minority" of 6,312 people who had used the visa route between 2008 and 2015 "were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity, and/or being engaged in serious and organized crime," Braverman told Parliament in a written statement.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Ukraine-war/Ukraine-war-Free-to-read/Ukraine-latest-China-s-trade-with-Russia-hit-new-high-in-2022

[Aggy 755]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

 

 No doubt if you do a quick Google search you’ll able to find the MPs who quit and sat as independents. If you find the bbc article you’ll no doubt find the most obviously relevant quote from one of them who said he quit “furious that the Labour leadership is complicit in facilitating Brexit". Of course the anti-semitism row was also a part of that, but I expect you will brush that under the carpet as well.

I’m not really sure why you’re arguing. Labour haven’t won an election for a very long time. A lifelong Labour voter is telling you why they and others are disillusioned with the Labour Party, and you appear to be saying that nobody is disillusioned, Labour have done no wrong, and the only reason the Tories keep winning is because of some racists who vote for them nowadays instead of Labour. Strange take.

Edit: and I’m not convinced the manifesto you posted really helps. It does exactly what I said - they took a stance of doing neither. We think this but we won’t do such and such unless you tell us to do that. I’d have loved them to come out and say sod this we think it’s a load of rubbish and will do what we can to reverse / oppose it. They didn’t because they didn’t want to lose certain voters. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Aggy

[Herman 9,780]

I think we can all agree that Corbyn put in very little effort when it came to the Remain campaign. Ambivalent attitude at best, complete hindrance at worst. He was clearly more alligned to the Lexit position than his party was, overall, and in the end did little to add support to a faltering fight.

[horsefly 4,303]

47 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 No doubt if you do a quick Google search you’ll able to find the MPs who quit and sat as independents. If you find the bbc article you’ll no doubt find the most obviously relevant quote from one of them who said he quit “furious that the Labour leadership is complicit in facilitating Brexit". Of course the anti-semitism row was also a part of that, but I expect you will brush that under the carpet as well.

I’m not really sure why you’re arguing. Labour haven’t won an election for a very long time. A lifelong Labour voter is telling you why they and others are disillusioned with the Labour Party, and you appear to be saying that nobody is disillusioned, Labour have done no wrong, and the only reason the Tories keep winning is because of some racists who vote for them nowadays instead of Labour. Strange take.

Edit: and I’m not convinced the manifesto you posted really helps. It does exactly what I said - they took a stance of doing neither. We think this but we won’t do such and such unless you tell us to do that. I’d have loved them to come out and say sod this we think it’s a load of rubbish and will do what we can to reverse / oppose it. They didn’t because they didn’t want to lose certain voters. 

You lied about the  Labour's Party's official policy during the referendum, and you lied about the Labour Party's official policy after the referendum. You made up rubbish that would even embarrass the Daily Mail. You continue to fail to name a single Labour MP of which you claim there are many who resigned because of its Brexit policy. You have now just lied about what I have claimed; do point out where I say "nobody is disillusioned" or any of the other rubbish you spout in that absurd sentence. I never said anything remotely of the sort, so yet again we find you trying to distract from the lies you have spouted and for which I have called you out. "Strange take" indeed when you have to lie so blatantly about what someone else has said when it can easily be confirmed by reading the actual posts. You should apologise for those lies, but given past evidence I expect you will just double down and make up more lies.

As for your absurd edit, your inability to be honest remains intact. The policy was not remotely ambiguous. The line was very clear; we accept the result of the referendum, we will renegotiate the deal with the EU to ensure closer and better trade and social arrangements, we will then let the public vote on that deal, that vote will be legally binding. You may struggle intellectually to read the manifesto position, I've yet to meet anybody else who finds any difficulty.

Edited January 13, 2023 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,303]

12 minutes ago, Herman said:

I think we can all agree that Corbyn put in very little effort when it came to the Remain campaign. Ambivalent attitude at best, complete hindrance at worst. He was clearly more alligned to the Lexit position than his party was, overall, and in the end did little to add support to a faltering fight.

Indeed! Like most of what he did he was useless, and as result was side-lined during the referendum. None of that alters the fact that the Labour Party's official position was very clearly anti-Brexit. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

That Labour position sounds like "tell us what you want, we'll try and get it for you". Sounds fair to me - people-powered bottom-up politics instead of the other way around.

[Aggy 755]

21 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You lied about the  Labour's Party's official policy during the referendum, and you lied about the Labour Party's official policy after the referendum. You made up rubbish that would even embarrass the Daily Mail. You continue to fail to name a single Labour MP of which you claim there are many who resigned because of its Brexit policy. You have now just lied about what I have claimed; do point out where I say "nobody is disillusioned" or any of the other rubbish you spout in that absurd sentence. I never said anything remotely of the sort, so yet again we find you trying to distract from the lies you have spouted and for which I have called you out. "Strange take" indeed when you have to lie so blatantly about what someone else has said when it can easily be confirmed by reading the actual posts. You should apologise for those lies, but given past evidence I expect you will just double down and make up more lies.

As for your absurd edit, your inability to be honest remains intact. The policy was not remotely ambiguous. The line was very clear; we accept the result of the referendum, we will renegotiate the deal with the EU to ensure a closer and better trade and social arrangements, we will then let the public vote on that deal, that vote will be legally binding. You may struggle intellectually to read the manifesto position, I've yet to meet anybody else who finds any difficulty.

Ignoring your attempt to get personal, any chance you looked into those seven independent mps? And you do realise the “evidence” you’ve posted for the Labour party’s view on brexit was from their manifesto for the general election after the brexit referendum? Even with my struggle intellectually I can see you’re either a bit confused or being a little bit disingenuous with that.

Frankly I didn’t want them to “abide by the results of the referendum” as part of their manifesto at the later general election. That’s not how politics works. Their manifesto for the next election won’t be “you voted the tories in last time so we’ll abide by what you wanted then”. 

The text you posted did exactly what I said I and others didn’t like about the Labour Party. I initially said that in my post to KG where the gripe was that the Labour Party weren’t strong enough in their own policies. You then posted a link to a policy that was “we’ll probably do this if you tell us to do so but we won’t tel you what we actually think”.

As I’ve said, I had previously always voted Labour. Their stance in brexit - which is not a minor little policy - left me feeling like they didn’t strongly enough support my views on a once in a lifetime vote affecting the whole future of the country. Since then all we’ve heard is how badly the tories are doing. You can tell me why I’m wrong but the reality is it’s what lots of people think. 

While you are certainly very militant in your support of the Labour party, I do hope you’re not running for election as a councillor with the party or anything like that. What they need is more people actually willing to think about why they’re losing elections and what they can do to win people back. Not people who continue to tell historic Labour party voters that their concerns about the party are wrong and they should just suck it up. 

[horsefly 4,303]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

That Labour position sounds like "tell us what you want, we'll try and get it for you". Sounds fair to me - people-powered bottom-up politics instead of the other way around.

Indeed! They explicitly accepted the result of the referendum, promised to renegotiate the much criticised Johnson deal to get a better deal for the country, then said they would give the country a further opportunity to express their will in a legally binding vote on that deal. The idea that there was anything ambiguous in that policy is pure far-right propaganda. The idea they could have simply said Labour will ignore the referendum result is about as foolishly undemocratic as it could get. 

[Aggy 755]

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

That Labour position sounds like "tell us what you want, we'll try and get it for you". Sounds fair to me - people-powered bottom-up politics instead of the other way around.

So what are we voting for at the next election? I’m voting for a party whose views represent mine. Not a party whose views are that they’ll do what others say at some point in the future.

[horsefly 4,303]

13 hours ago, Aggy said:

Ignoring your attempt to get personal, any chance you looked into those seven independent mps? And you do realise the “evidence” you’ve posted for the Labour party’s view on brexit was from their manifesto for the general election after the brexit referendum? Even with my struggle intellectually I can see you’re either a bit confused or being a little bit disingenuous with that.

Oh dear! One of those independent MPs is a personal friend I shared a flat with at university. Neither she nor any of the Labour MPs who broke away from labour did so because of its Brexit policy. Strange you can't name one of them and provide a relevant quote. And yet again you display your inability to actually read what I said. I clearly demarcated Labour Party Brexit policy both during the referendum AND at the time of the 2019 general election. For once try and understand what was actually said than the made up drivel that formulates inside your head. Labour Party policy was ANTI-BREXIT during the referendum and anti-Johnson's Brexit deal at the time of the 2019 GE.

Edited January 13, 2023 by horsefly
clarification of Labour's opposition to Johnson's Brexit deal

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

So what are we voting for at the next election? I’m voting for a party whose views represent mine. Not a party whose views are that they’ll do what others say at some point in the future.

If you're voting for a party whose views represent yours, find one. If it's not one of the two major ones and you're worried about your vote not counting then it may be a reflection of our poor, antiquated electoral models. If you, like me, think this current shower just have to be chucked out, then tactical voting may be the way forward (but by definition, tactical voting shows the failure of an electoral model).

As much as I think politicians are mendacious due to the job and go "top-down" far too often, I'm perfectly happy to see something more citizen-powered even if I'm not naturally going to know precisely what they want. Personally, I voted Remain, but I'm perfectly happy with referendum results that I disagree with provided that campaigning was fair and factual and that the outcome is a genuine reflection of the wish of the people.

Edited January 13, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

On 10/01/2023 at 11:26, keelansgrandad said:

Policies are greatly needed. That is why Corbyn's popularity soared for a while. He was quite happy to tell the world what he would do as PM. Starmer need to be brave and say things other than visions. He needs to tell us he will sort the NHS out once and for all and he will introduce a system to pay for it. He would walk the next election then.

Policies are important, but an opposition is better off creating themes for policies in opposition through criticism of government decisions, and/or failing to tackle obvious problems,  than it is laying out in any detail what it would do instead.

If you've criticised government for something and laid out your own plan of attack, then government can either turn it around by picking holes in your policies, or simply steal your policies and implement them, which neutralises your opposition and leaves you with one less thing to offer as an alternative government when the time comes for a GE.

In fairness, in an ideal world where everyone was invested in being constructive and doing what's best for the country, then maybe that's the way it should be, but in an adversial system you have to play your cards close to your chest until you're ready to play your hand. It's yet another argument in favour of electoral reform to a system that forces more cooperation between parties!

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Policies are important, but an opposition is better off creating themes for policies in opposition through criticism of government decisions, and/or failing to tackle obvious problems,  than it is laying out in any detail what it would do instead.

If you've criticised government for something and laid out your own plan of attack, then government can either turn it around by picking holes in your policies, or simply steal your policies and implement them, which neutralises your opposition and leaves you with one less thing to offer as an alternative government when the time comes for a GE.

In fairness, in an ideal world where everyone was invested in being constructive and doing what's best for the country, then maybe that's the way it should be, but in an adversial system you have to play your cards close to your chest until you're ready to play your hand. It's yet another argument in favour of electoral reform to a system that forces more cooperation between parties!

 

Agreed with the bit in bold. After all, the Tories found a magic money tree they fundamentally criticised before - just that the beneficiaries were largely a different group.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agreed with the bit in bold. After all, the Tories found a magic money tree they fundamentally criticised before - just that the beneficiaries were largely a different group.

A very left-wing American friend of mine (I know; who knew they existed?) has shared many memes in the past describing a lot of Republican rhetoric as 'socialism for the very rich'.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

24 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Policies are important, but an opposition is better off creating themes for policies in opposition through criticism of government decisions, and/or failing to tackle obvious problems,  than it is laying out in any detail what it would do instead.

If you've criticised government for something and laid out your own plan of attack, then government can either turn it around by picking holes in your policies, or simply steal your policies and implement them, which neutralises your opposition and leaves you with one less thing to offer as an alternative government when the time comes for a GE.

In fairness, in an ideal world where everyone was invested in being constructive and doing what's best for the country, then maybe that's the way it should be, but in an adversial system you have to play your cards close to your chest until you're ready to play your hand. It's yet another argument in favour of electoral reform to a system that forces more cooperation between parties!

 

 

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agreed with the bit in bold. After all, the Tories found a magic money tree they fundamentally criticised before - just that the beneficiaries were largely a different group.

I think SKS is actually playing his hand very well at present. Still a year (or two) to the next GE. 20 point lead.

Already some bold policies but largely uncontentious or indeed welcomed  - Energy, Lords reform, NHS etc. Even Private Schools.

What he doesn't need at present are any very divisive hostages to fortune - Brexit or some of the more radical left Labour polices that could be easily attacked by a partisan press. He needs to win and win big. Plenty of time for these when relevant in a second term if things have at least stabilized. He and Labour above everything have to look and behave like a proper grown up PM & party in waiting (so keep sufficiently distanced from the strikes) to contrast with incumbents.

Corbyn by contrast only ever really appealed to his base - the 10 to 20%. Always protesting but never in office. And yes he should have thrown himself into Remain heart and soul - but he had no leadership qualities just a stuck in 70's mindset. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

A very left-wing American friend of mine (I know; who knew they existed?) has shared many memes in the past describing a lot of Republican rhetoric as 'socialism for the very rich'.

It often is. Think it was Martin Luther King who said it was socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor, or words to that effect.

This is another reason why the notion of a "meritocracy" is toxic nonsense when applied to a society as a whole, and not to smaller subsets within it as by definition it says those at the bottom are less worthy or deserving.