That’s true but the labour party is far more conservative than ever before in its history, and is still squarely “conservative” even if less so than the others. They still want to privatise the NHS even more, for example, a.right wing position which will cause a lot of suffering and cost many lives. Just because they’re not fully fascist doesn’t mean you can’t criticise them for being too conservative.
That is absolutely not true what are you on about. Is absolutely no evidence they want to privatize the NHS unless of course you want to actually point to some evidence
When a politician says “Let me be clear, we’re not talking about privatising the NHS, we’re talking about using the private sector effectively” (emphasis mine) they mean further privatisation, just like under Blair, Starmer’s hero.
This is incredibly reductive but suppose there was a single spectrum between progressive and conservative. Let’s make progressive 0 and conservative 10.
Forgetting about parties for a moment, let’s say the will of the general population is 7.
If you have two major parties they will arrange themselves as 6.5 and 7.5. Both parties appear “conservative”, but really your progressive party needs to appear conservative to steal as many swing voters as possible.
If they won consecutive elections their policies would start to move back down the spectrum.
They still want to privatise the NHS even more, for example, a.right wing position which will cause a lot of suffering and cost many lives.
This proves that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Then again, very few people seem to know anything about healthcare provision, yet pontificate like experts.
Take a look at Europe for how we should do healthcare. Shock horror, it’s a mix of public and private that isn’t anything like America and is affordable for all. And that you can actually access. And doesn’t waste all the billions we put into it.
This proves that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Wrong. 1) The Labour party do intend further privatisation and 2) the current creeping privatisation has been directly attributed, time and again, to worsening outcomes. A third point would be that capitalism and healthcare fundamentally do not mix, as one relies on quantitative feedback and metrics, while the other can only be measured subjectively.
The NHS model is not that of European healthcare systems, and further privatisation under this model will cause damage.
Which is why we need to change to a European model.
The NHS model is outdated. When it was created, it was designed to be used to make people healthier, then demand would go down. They didn’t envision a society where we would all lead healthier lives, live longer and then need healthcare in our later lives as a natural byproduct of aging.
The NHS hasn’t moved with the times, so either we reform it or we stick with the current model, continuing to chuck money into a bottomless pit.
That’s true but the labour party is far more conservative than ever before in its history, and is still squarely “conservative” even if less so than the others. They still want to privatise the NHS even more, for example, a.right wing position which will cause a lot of suffering and cost many lives. Just because they’re not fully fascist doesn’t mean you can’t criticise them for being too conservative.
That is absolutely not true what are you on about. Is absolutely no evidence they want to privatize the NHS unless of course you want to actually point to some evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jan/25/keir-starmers-private-prescription-for-the-nhs-is-dangerous
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-pledge-privatisation-b2123849.html
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23236106.nhs-keir-starmer-defends-use-private-sector-despite-earlier-pledge/
And this is before the election even happens.
When a politician says “Let me be clear, we’re not talking about privatising the NHS, we’re talking about using the private sector effectively” (emphasis mine) they mean further privatisation, just like under Blair, Starmer’s hero.
That’s not really how major parties work though?
This is incredibly reductive but suppose there was a single spectrum between progressive and conservative. Let’s make progressive 0 and conservative 10.
Forgetting about parties for a moment, let’s say the will of the general population is 7.
If you have two major parties they will arrange themselves as 6.5 and 7.5. Both parties appear “conservative”, but really your progressive party needs to appear conservative to steal as many swing voters as possible.
If they won consecutive elections their policies would start to move back down the spectrum.
This is known as the “Overton window” for anyone who wants to read into it further.
Yeah right I had no idea it had a name. Thanks.
This proves that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Then again, very few people seem to know anything about healthcare provision, yet pontificate like experts.
Take a look at Europe for how we should do healthcare. Shock horror, it’s a mix of public and private that isn’t anything like America and is affordable for all. And that you can actually access. And doesn’t waste all the billions we put into it.
Wrong. 1) The Labour party do intend further privatisation and 2) the current creeping privatisation has been directly attributed, time and again, to worsening outcomes. A third point would be that capitalism and healthcare fundamentally do not mix, as one relies on quantitative feedback and metrics, while the other can only be measured subjectively.
The NHS model is not that of European healthcare systems, and further privatisation under this model will cause damage.
Which is why we need to change to a European model.
The NHS model is outdated. When it was created, it was designed to be used to make people healthier, then demand would go down. They didn’t envision a society where we would all lead healthier lives, live longer and then need healthcare in our later lives as a natural byproduct of aging.
The NHS hasn’t moved with the times, so either we reform it or we stick with the current model, continuing to chuck money into a bottomless pit.