General Election 2017: Labour Manifesto Draft Leaked

[naomi24]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439

Your thoughts?

[woofgang]

“The NHS isn’t a business though?”
No, but BUPA is a not for profit business run on business lines and I would choose my local (and more distant) Bupa facilities for care, up to date treatment cleanliness, efficiency and “heart” over my local NHS facilities every single blooming time.

[Togo]

I am not advocating that the NHS should be run "as" a business. What I am saying is that it should be run in a business like manner and the outmoded political attitudes that are entrenched, not only within the organisation, but also outside it. The beliefs that we have some God given right to treat it as free and easily accessed with no regard for the well being of the actual organisation. It should be run as any business with a viable future would be. First step is root and branch wheedling out of the management structure that is crippling it.

[New Judge]

“There is now talk of at least 100 Labour MPs forming a completely new party, and why not?”

Why not indeed. Provided that they either:

(a) Stand on June 8th either as Independents or members of the “Progressives” party (which I believe is the banner under which it has been suggested they may group themselves) or

(b) Resign their seats if elected under the Labour banner and they immediately resign the Labour Whip. This will force by-elections with them standing as under (a).

To be elected as a Labour MP and then resign the Labour Whip (as it has been suggested they will do) is hypocritical and disingenuous. If they have no belief in the Labour Party as it currently stands they have no right to stand for election under that party’s manifesto, particularly if they intend to disown that manifesto as soon as they are elected.

[AB Editor]

All I can say is that you're in a fortunate position to afford private healthcare.

Is it the politics the deciding factor?

Or is it because the health of those in the customer pool doesn't include the very sick (because those who can afford private healthcare are usually wealthier and usually less likely to be ill)?

It's an interesting discussion.

[jim360]

In the meantime, the Tories have come out with fox hunting, Ed Miliband energy bill cap, and "strong and stable" as if this means anything in particular.

Still, I suppose it's quite an effective way to avoid policy criticism by not offering any.

[AB Editor]

Hi NJ, yes, that would be the way to go forward for them. Unlikely though?

[naomi24]

Jim, the Tories haven’t ‘come out with foxhunting’. Their manifesto hasn’t been published yet. On the back of a leaked memo written by someone else, Mrs May has said that should the question arise again, she will allow a free vote, which is fair enough.

[EDDIE51]

Renationalising the railways seems a good idea to me. What was at one time a single organisation is now split into over 90 companies!
How can you run a railway system where one company owns the trains another owns the track , another owns the signaling equipment and yet another owns the station buildings?

[youngmafbog]

Heaven forbid that democracy will reign and a vote asked for, doesnt TM realize the only policies that are correct are the ones the left spout. And if you dont abide by them thy will torch your cars loot your shops and attack your police.

[Garaman]

Wiki describes the Labour Party as ‘big tent, encompassing a diversity of ideological trends from strongly socialist to moderately social democratic’. Not so sure it is that big anymore, and in any case Corbyn and his cronies are on the inside pissing in it.

[New Judge]

“Renationalising the railways seems a good idea to me.”

You obviously don’t remember the railways before they were nationalised, Eddie. I do. I spent 35 years using the railways daily, twenty five under “British Rail(ways)” and ten under the privatised regime. I can tell you without a shadow of hesitation or doubt that privatisation has been an enormous benefit to rail travellers, both regular and occasional.

Rail passenger numbers have doubled in the last 10-12 years. If they are so terrible, why would that be? It is true that the way they were privatised was not the best model that could have been chosen. However, it was the only model that was allowed. It’s a fairly complex issue of which I do have a bit of knowledge (as a railway buff). Put simply, the EU (remember them?) had at the time its “First Railway Directive”. This said (among many other things):

“separating [of] the management of railway operation and infrastructure from the provision of railway transport services, separation of accounts being compulsory and organizational or institutional separation being optional.”

The Directive was updated in 2012. It still contains the same principles and these have been reinforced. In short, it means that multiple train operating companies must be allowed to use the same track competitively. This means that re-nationalisation of the railways, certainly along the lines Mr Corbyn and his mates would lead us to believe, is all but impossible at least until we leave the EU.

[EDDIE51]

I do remember the railways under British Rail NJ. I used to work in London and traveled in and and back every day back in British rail days!
But it does not have to be that way, other countries have nationalised rail services that are models of efficiency, and add a substantial contribution to their countries economy.

[EDDIE51]

^ and as we will soon be out of the EU this could be one of the benefits!

[EDDIE51]

Most of Europe ,Germany,Switzerland,Netherlands,Sweden,Italy,Spain, and France all have Rail networks that are at least 80% state owned and all are more efficient and with cheaper fares than the UK.

[AB Editor]

I can't see anything wrong with public transport being publicly owned.

I find the current state of affairs doesn't satisfy my needs at all.

Obviously, if you're commuting an hour to London every day, you're probably fine... but then, you always have been!

[woofgang]

"Or is it because the health of those in the customer pool doesn't include the very sick (because those who can afford private healthcare are usually wealthier and usually less likely to be ill)?”


Well my husband was sick enough to die after several serious operations. I am not “lucky enough” to afford private health care. Everything I have I or my husband worked for, we were both brought up in cold water council house dwellings by working class parents, although we didn’t live in a shoe box and lick t’road clean wi’ower tongues. Those of us who choose to spend our money on private health insurance pay for it with money that has been taxed once, its taxed again when we but the insurance and we take a burden off the NHS by paying in part or whole for our own healthcare.

yes....sensitive point with me. I have worked within the NHS and been a customer and my feeling is that it could do with a bit more of a business like attitude. All big businesses do not consume alive the people who work for them.

[naomi24]

woofgang, well said.

[woofgang]

Naomi...I don’t usually lose it......

[naomi24]

I know the feeling. ;o)

[AB Editor]

I didn't say "luck" once in my post Woofgang. As you say, a sensitive subject.

Still, Bupa is profitable because less sick people use it.

Expand Bupa to everyone, and it would run in to the same problems as the NHS. I don't think it's a totally fair comparison.