Jump to content
StanSP

Starmer Next Labour Leader

Recommended Posts

I guess it depends on your own point of view but the sheer amount of life and suffering the NHS has saved over the last several decades has to put Attlee near the top for me too - he did have a pretty important role in making it happen, too. I don't think Churchill would have done it - especially at the expense of committing to leaving India in a terrible mess as a corollary.

 

Blair is an interesting one - Iraq of course will always be the big thunderstorm pissing on his legacy (due to the contempory foreign policy relationship with Dubya) but I'm not sure there was an awful lot else he got wrong domestically and he was able to do it because he was frankly a master of the art of electioneering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Cummings did wrong, but I think most normal people would sympathize (if you take your Brexit hating hats off).  This took place early in the virus story and he probably panicked as his wife apparently also had symptoms and wanted his parents nearby as he's got a very young kid.  I'm sure in the same situation, worried, most of us would probably have made the same call.  Once there, they isolated in a different part of the property and didn't leave for the 2 weeks, so its being reported now.

 

Silly move (for us to discuss in hindsight), but no doubt worried and thinking of his kid he made the call.

 

Its not like he got in his car, healthy and fine, in a calm moment of thought and drove 110 miles to see his parents for his dads birthday.

 

I think the complete oppoaite. People haven’t seen their parents in weeks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Blair is an interesting one - Iraq of course will always be the big thunderstorm pissing on his legacy (due to the contempory foreign policy relationship with Dubya) but I'm not sure there was an awful lot else he got wrong domestically and he was able to do it because he was frankly a master of the art of electioneering.

I often find there’s a huge slice of irony in my workplace and industry. 
 

Various people in their mid 40s and early 50s who are dye in the wool Tories but their lives took off as a result of the Blair years. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess it depends on your own point of view but the sheer amount of life and suffering the NHS has saved over the last several decades has to put Attlee near the top for me too - he did have a pretty important role in making it happen, too. I don't think Churchill would have done it - especially at the expense of committing to leaving India in a terrible mess as a corollary.

Of course he would, he was committed to doing so in 1944 and was quite public about it after the Beveridge report. "Healthy citizens are the greatest asset a nation can have"

 

I'd argue Disraeli's public health act was as important as the creation of the NHS as well in terms of national healthcare. The Liberals as well under DLG and Asquith made huge advances in terms of welfare, people weren't just left to die before 1945.

Edited by MattP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess it depends on your own point of view but the sheer amount of life and suffering the NHS has saved over the last several decades has to put Attlee near the top for me too - he did have a pretty important role in making it happen, too. I don't think Churchill would have done it - especially at the expense of committing to leaving India in a terrible mess as a corollary.

 

Blair is an interesting one - Iraq of course will always be the big thunderstorm pissing on his legacy (due to the contempory foreign policy relationship with Dubya) but I'm not sure there was an awful lot else he got wrong domestically and he was able to do it because he was frankly a master of the art of electioneering.

I think Churchill would have introduced some form of National Health Care.I think even the most ardent tories knew they had to give something back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course he would, he was committed to doing so in 1944 and was quite public about it after the Beveridge report. "Healthy citizens are the greatest asset a nation can have"

 

I'd argue Disraeli's public health act was as important as the creation of the NHS as well in terms of national healthcare. The Liberals as well under DLG and Asquith made huge advances in terms of welfare, people weren't just left to die before 1945.

I'd be interested in reading a source that proves Churchill would have set an NHS or something like it up as official policy if one can be found?

 

It might have been interesting to see how Churchill would have handled it alongside having to withdraw from India given how deeply he felt about that particular corner of the British Empire.

Edited by leicsmac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the front benchers squirming to Cummings defence is sickening. Can't see how this wont be a massive disaster for the Tories.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd be interested in reading a source that proves Churchill would have set an NHS or something like it up as official policy if one can be found?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nhs-70-formed-florence-nightingale-century-free-healthcare-a8429346.html

 

The Beveridge Report, which proposed widespread reforms to the system of social welfare to address what William Beveridge identified as five “giant evils” in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease. Published in the midst of World War II, the report promised rewards for everyone’s sacrifices. It was overwhelmingly popular with the public.

Finally, Sir Winston Churchill, speaking as prime minister in the spring of 1944, affirmed that it was the policy of the government to establish a national health service that would make accessible to all, irrespective of social class or means, adequate and modern social care. The high and rising cost of medical care was the key consideration. Healthcare shouldn’t be rationed by price.

Edited by MattP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/nhs-70-formed-florence-nightingale-century-free-healthcare-a8429346.html

 

The Beveridge Report, which proposed widespread reforms to the system of social welfare to address what William Beveridge identified as five “giant evils” in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease. Published in the midst of World War II, the report promised rewards for everyone’s sacrifices. It was overwhelmingly popular with the public.

Finally, Sir Winston Churchill, speaking as prime minister in the spring of 1944, affirmed that it was the policy of the government to establish a national health service that would make accessible to all, irrespective of social class or means, adequate and modern social care. The high and rising cost of medical care was the key consideration. Healthcare shouldn’t be rationed by price.

Good enough for me!

 

Evidently the 1945 electorate thought Attlee could rebuild in other areas too and better than Churchill could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Reading the front benchers squirming to Cummings defence is sickening. Can't see how this wont be a massive disaster for the Tories.

You’d think they might vary the posts a bit rather than they all been the same 😂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Reading the front benchers squirming to Cummings defence is sickening. Can't see how this wont be a massive disaster for the Tories.

Absolutely seething reading it. What a bunch of morally bankrupt cowards. Four legs good, two legs better...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read, thank you @MattP

 

Do you think there would have been differences between the Churchill NHS and the Attlee one? Do you think that Churchill may have been more ‘restricted‘ as to what it covered? “Accessible health care” can range quite broadly depending on your definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Good enough for me!

 

Evidently the 1945 electorate thought Attlee could rebuild in other areas too and better than Churchill could.

They did, Churchill was considered a war time leader and still wasn't trusted with domestic policy so they went for Attlee, he then got the boot as well - tough crowd back then lol

 

This myth that Churchill wouldn't have built a NHS though is fiction and it has somehow managed to gain some traction over the last few years. I don't really know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Cummings scandal isn't going away, and the pathetic attempts from ministers to defend him are just making it worse. The defence has more holes in it than Sousa's XI at Portsmouth. 

 

When even Julia Hartley-Brewer is going in studs up, leaving you dependent on Guido for a full blooded defence, you've seriously dropped a bollock. I can see pressure growing within the party to sack him now, and it'll be a test of Johnson's leadership. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bilo said:

This Cummings scandal isn't going away, and the pathetic attempts from ministers to defend him are just making it worse. The defence has more holes in it than Sousa's XI at Portsmouth. 

 

When even Julia Hartley-Brewer is going in studs up, leaving you dependent on Guido for a full blooded defence, you've seriously dropped a bollock. I can see pressure growing within the party to sack him now, and it'll be a test of Johnson's leadership. 

When it comes to this scenario in isolation (hehe), he's failing at that given the statement from the PM's office earlier this morning - defending his actions, saying there was no contact with the police, no breaking of the rules etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the government have now decided to copy Trump and claim that any attack on them is 'politicised'.

So that's the end of serious debate.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not for this thread as it’s about the labour leader but as I’ve mentioned before, boris really relies on those around him .... he really won’t want to lose his most trusted lieutenants ..... and as a country, if Cummings is actually any good at stuff then we will lose out .... but yo7 can’t have one rule for those in positions of responsibility  at times like this .......

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starmer getting criticised for not reacting to the Cummings stuff however it’s probably for the better. Let the damage unfold and sweep up the debris. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Starmer getting criticised for not reacting to the Cummings stuff however it’s probably for the better. Let the damage unfold and sweep up the debris. 


There’s still plenty of Tory-loyal media and portions of the public that will jump on him for ‘politicising’ and ‘point-scoring’. He’s been given twenty stacks of ammunition by Government and possibly more as the story progresses. Why fire it all before the smoke clears? Get the full picture, let the government potentially trip over itself and hit them off-balance. Times on his side on this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Starmer getting criticised for not reacting to the Cummings stuff however it’s probably for the better. Let the damage unfold and sweep up the debris. 

 

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:


There’s still plenty of Tory-loyal media and portions of the public that will jump on him for ‘politicising’ and ‘point-scoring’. He’s been given twenty stacks of ammunition by Government and possibly more as the story progresses. Why fire it all before the smoke clears? Get the full picture, let the government potentially trip over itself and hit them off-balance. Times on his side on this one.

Agreed. 

 

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. 

 

He/Labour have an open goal for a good few days here. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Starmer getting criticised for not reacting to the Cummings stuff however it’s probably for the better. Let the damage unfold and sweep up the debris. 

Absolutely this is a messy tabloid business best left well alone by someone trying to look statesman like.

 

This thing is rolling now and it's going to damage a lot of senior Tories. Keir interjecting won't change anything now.

Edited by The whole world smiles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:


There’s still plenty of Tory-loyal media and portions of the public that will jump on him for ‘politicising’ and ‘point-scoring’. He’s been given twenty stacks of ammunition by Government and possibly more as the story progresses. Why fire it all before the smoke clears? Get the full picture, let the government potentially trip over itself and hit them off-balance. Times on his side on this one.

He can build his 2024 campaign on the back of this I think. These are the people who were supposedly rescuing this country from the 'political elite' yet look at the contempt they treat the British people with. 

Edited by Lionator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

 

Turns out going for the 'you bought your mum a field to watch donkeys, you evil, evil man!!!' didn't quite work then! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...