RugbyRebels

Jess Phillips quits race, claiming she can't unite the Labour Party; code for she can't get unions to back her and is hated by momentum

Banquo wrote:Jess Phillips quits race, claiming she can't unite the Labour Party; code for she can't get unions to back her and is hated by momentum

She's right. But she's plenty young enough to have another go and will not have burned any bridges yet with the early exit. Possibly ill-advised to say she'd back one of the other female candidates, even if Labour are well behind the other parties in promoting female leaders

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:Jess Phillips quits race, claiming she can't unite the Labour Party; code for she can't get unions to back her and is hated by momentum

She's right. But she's plenty young enough to have another go and will not have burned any bridges yet with the early exit. Possibly ill-advised to say she'd back one of the other female candidates, even if Labour are well behind the other parties in promoting female leaders

They'd all be right in saying that, I'd think.

Interesting thread:

Mellsblue wrote:Interesting thread:

Gawd

Is George Lansbury getting such a bad favourable rating because he's being confused with George Lazenby?

So, the NHS then...

£350M a week? Or increased political interference and privatisation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24761.html


"Boris Johnson to seize control over NHS with new law

Ministers want new powers to instruct health bosses to force pace of change, amid fears that private-sector involvement could be expanded across health service

..."

Your link doesn’t work for me so I’m not sure what you mean with regards privatisation. I haven’t read anything about that.
I’m surprised those on left, and particularly a Corbyn supporter, are now against greater govt control in the NHS. That’s an interesting volte face. This is pretty much about rolling back the Lansley reforms of 2012 away from the internal market model. I’m surprised you are against that.

Sorry. Typo fixed.

Your surprise would be easily explained by your obvious ignorance of my politics though - starting at the fact that I am not, nor ever have been, a Corbyn supporter, and working up from there.

So, what are your politics? Your defence of Corbyn on here was fairly regular. Apols if I’ve misinterpreted that.

If you’re not on the left then you’re doing a very good job of being under cover. If you’re unhappy that it’s a Conservative govt taking more control, rather than just govt per se, then fine but call it that. If you’re happy with the status quo of an NHS freer of state control and with an internal market place then welcome to the Conservatives. The majority of the reforms are just rolling back those made by the Cameron govt.

‘The move .........is likely to raise concerns that Conservative ministers could seek to use new powers to extend private-sector involvement in the NHS.’
Likely. Could. Concerns. Seek. It’s a done deal then. It’s also from a report from The Times. The Murdoch owned Times. It’s all lies. Lies, I tell you.

Which Tyler wrote:So, the NHS then...

£350M a week? Or increased political interference and privatisation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24761.html


"Boris Johnson to seize control over NHS with new law

Ministers want new powers to instruct health bosses to force pace of change, amid fears that private-sector involvement could be expanded across health service

..."

I’m not hugely against this. The government gets the blame for anything going wrong in the NHS. But their current control levels aren’t great. The elected government should be able to direct the CEO of the NHS.

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:So, the NHS then...

£350M a week? Or increased political interference and privatisation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24761.html


"Boris Johnson to seize control over NHS with new law

Ministers want new powers to instruct health bosses to force pace of change, amid fears that private-sector involvement could be expanded across health service

..."

I’m not hugely against this. The government gets the blame for anything going wrong in the NHS. But their current control levels aren’t great. The elected government should be able to direct the CEO of the NHS.

Even NHS E thinks Stevens has too much power- and for everything he is trying to do right- more sanity in the mess that is GP practices and their 'innovative ways of using funding' (for the avoidance of doubt, GP practices are all private entities)...he is also doing something wrong, namely concentrating resources and services into the (acute) Trusts, which hamstrings community services. He is also taking competitive tendering out of the system, but procurement remains a huge mess with archaic and 'inconsistent' practice; whilst the bigger privatisation bits (PFI notably) have been less than good, some elements have delivered better service for patients and better value for money for the tax payer, as well as better engaged staff. I think not for profit enterprises definitely have a place in the whole picture, but suspect Stevens would have them all out- whither the GP practices though ? There is also colossal waste still - more funding needed, but more efficiency too.
So I do think the govt should be holding the CEO to account much more, but not day on day direction.

Meanwhile, it seems the 'party apparatchiks' don't really want Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51432440

Banquo wrote:Meanwhile, it seems the 'party apparatchiks' don't really want Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51432440

So wait, the party are accusing a team of unlawfully getting access to a database the same team will lawfully get access to next week?

Jesus duck, I’m seriously coming round to the fact the Labour Party is just broken

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Meanwhile, it seems the 'party apparatchiks' don't really want Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51432440

So wait, the party are accusing a team of unlawfully getting access to a database the same team will lawfully get access to next week?

Jesus duck, I’m seriously coming round to the fact the Labour Party is just broken

?? did it really need confirming?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:Meanwhile, it seems the 'party apparatchiks' don't really want Starmer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51432440

So wait, the party are accusing a team of unlawfully getting access to a database the same team will lawfully get access to next week?

Jesus duck, I’m seriously coming round to the fact the Labour Party is just broken

?? did it really need confirming?

Well, indeed. The UK needs a new humanist party

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
So wait, the party are accusing a team of unlawfully getting access to a database the same team will lawfully get access to next week?

Jesus duck, I’m seriously coming round to the fact the Labour Party is just broken

?? did it really need confirming?

Well, indeed. The UK needs a new humanist party

In UK politics, what would that mean from your point of view?

Mellsblue wrote:So, what are your politics? Your defence of Corbyn on here was fairly regular. Apols if I’ve misinterpreted that.

I don't think that Corbynnis the second coming of Stalin =/= Im a Corbyn fan - as you'd know if you'd read even one of my "defences" of him.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:So, what are your politics? Your defence of Corbyn on here was fairly regular. Apols if I’ve misinterpreted that.

I don't think that Corbynnis the second coming of Stalin =/= Im a Corbyn fan - as you'd know if you'd read even one of my "defences" of him.

As I said, apols if I’ve misinterpreted. I’ve obviously read your posts.
Regardless, I’m still surprised someone on the left is against more govt control of the NHS and the rolling back of Conservative govt policy.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: ?? did it really need confirming?

Well, indeed. The UK needs a new humanist party

In UK politics, what would that mean from your point of view?

We’ve had this most of the policies are what would be called socialist.

But the principles should be freedom of choice and equality of opportunity.

A party for small business and not for multinational corporations.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, indeed. The UK needs a new humanist party

In UK politics, what would that mean from your point of view?

We’ve had this most of the policies are what would be called socialist.

But the principles should be freedom of choice and equality of opportunity.

A party for small business and not for multinational corporations.

Not with me, but ok. So one nation tories then

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: In UK politics, what would that mean from your point of view?

We’ve had this most of the policies are what would be called socialist.

But the principles should be freedom of choice and equality of opportunity.

A party for small business and not for multinational corporations.

Not with me, but ok. So one nation tories then

There are definitely some similarities with One Nation Tories in the essentials, just not in the execution.

It was one of the reasons the first party I supported was the Conservatives, back when I was in college. But then all those politicians like BoJo proved they weren't One Nation Tories at all, but simple politicians with no ideology except "me, me, me".

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:So, the NHS then...

£350M a week? Or increased political interference and privatisation?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 24761.html


"Boris Johnson to seize control over NHS with new law

Ministers want new powers to instruct health bosses to force pace of change, amid fears that private-sector involvement could be expanded across health service

..."

I’m not hugely against this. The government gets the blame for anything going wrong in the NHS. But their current control levels aren’t great. The elected government should be able to direct the CEO of the NHS.

Even NHS E thinks Stevens has too much power- and for everything he is trying to do right- more sanity in the mess that is GP practices and their 'innovative ways of using funding' (for the avoidance of doubt, GP practices are all private entities)...he is also doing something wrong, namely concentrating resources and services into the (acute) Trusts, which hamstrings community services. He is also taking competitive tendering out of the system, but procurement remains a huge mess with archaic and 'inconsistent' practice; whilst the bigger privatisation bits (PFI notably) have been less than good, some elements have delivered better service for patients and better value for money for the tax payer, as well as better engaged staff. I think not for profit enterprises definitely have a place in the whole picture, but suspect Stevens would have them all out- whither the GP practices though ? There is also colossal waste still - more funding needed, but more efficiency too.
So I do think the govt should be holding the CEO to account much more, but not day on day direction.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with having an expert to run the day by day business of the NHS, or other organisations. But the government must be able to provide direction and hold that CEO to account.

Sandydragon wrote:Agreed. Nothing wrong with having an expert to run the day by day business of the NHS, or other organisations. But the government must be able to provide direction and hold that CEO to account.

I fear much of what this government would like to do with the NHS - open it up for private profit etc - so anything which gives them more direct control within the NHS is to be feared.