They have openly and repeatedly made it clear that they have no intention to do this, or anything like it.
I honestly am really not sure how much more open they can be about them working for corporations and not giving a shit about the people of this country before said people actually listen and stop pinning all of their hopes on this "lesser evil" "opposition" that has pretty much support the Tories every move.. 🤦♀️
Bahahaha, if Starmer even had thoughts about doing such a thing, he wouldn't have gotten the job he did. He's there specifically to ensure such "socialist" ideas don't come to the forefront again (like they did with Corbyn), and if by magic he ever suddenly shifted even remotely to the left and they do, he'll just get replaced and the party purged again.
Yes, it’s an idea for an alternate reality where Labour retained some belief in equality and wealth redistribution. Sadly we live in a hellish neoliberal mirror universe where the Labour leadership salivate whenever the Davos Boys ring austerity’s bell.
There is a poverty crisis in the UK but I don’t understand where this extra money would come from given that the cost of borrowing is so high. I think Labour would need to find efficiency savings in other areas to be able to afford it.
One example that springs to mind is that 1/3 of the NHS budget is currently being spent on funding litigations and compensation claims. Changing the law so that people who used the NHS forfeited their right to sue would immediately free up a lot of new money for social programmes.
Imagine being such a bootlicker that the first place you look to figure out why the tax pot is "empty" (it isn't, the funds are just being misappropriated and put in to places that don't actually benefit the population but our overlords) is the fucking NHS.. 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
If it’s free the patient should accept the risk of human error. This increasing trend in the UK towards litigating everything is an unwelcome import from the states imo.
Ironically diverting a 1/3 of NHS funding towards litigation makes accidents more likely and patients less safe.
It’s not free. We pay for the NHS through tax. It’s free at the point of use.
This is a seemingly perfect dandy stance to take, right up until you can’t afford private health care and then you’re the victim of medical negligence.
We found billions and billions for daft tax cuts and juicy contracts to Tory donors for dodgy services and contacts. No one asks “how can we afford this?” when it’s tax cuts for corporations or selling off profitable public owned assets. I think we can afford to spend a little more on helping people survive. The money spent on welfare also doesn’t just disappear, it goes straight back into the economy. The very poorest people can’t afford to have savings, it all gets spent on essentials.
Growing the economy is very difficult when people don’t have any money to spend. It’s a giant weight around the economy’s neck. If the Tories hadn’t been burning the country down for the last 14 years we wouldn’t have as many people struggling in poverty and wouldn’t have to spend as much. Unfortunately they have so we do.
How about we raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and reinvest that money into supporting the people of the nation and trying to grow the economy?
It’s also not one third of the NHS budget. The total “cost of harm” to the NHS Inc legal costs was £6.6bn in 2022-2023, the total budget was £180bn. That’s around 3.5%. Just use some common sense and think about what one third of the budget would imply. Is one third of the NHS made up of lawyers? Do you know just as many NHS lawyers as you do nurses and doctors? Double check “facts” that sound unbelievable and via outrageous before spewing them out for others to be misled by.
Fair point that I should have checked the 1/3 claim before posting. It was a figure I’d heard before. I think there is some debate over the cumulative figure though, for example this article suggests that the total cost of outstanding claims could total £83 billion - www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51180944
In terms of general government funding I disagree that it is something we can tax our way out of. The current tax burden is the highest it has been for over 50 years (obr.uk/…/the-uks-tax-burden-in-historical-and-int…) and at a certain point you get diminishing returns from raising taxes due to the laffer curve.
Again that figure is the “total outstanding” amount and isn’t the yearly cost. If a mistake during childbirth causes permanent disabilities for that child over the course of their life then the compensation will be a decent sum paid out over a long time. There are other better targets for saving budget or raising tax revenues.
We need to grow the economy from the bottom up. Trickle down has been proven to be bullshit. There’s plenty of scope to raise taxes on corporations and via asset/investment returns marginally to offset investment in growing the economy and helping the worst off. The report you linked says that the UK has a lower total tax burden than many other developed nations. We don’t need to go crazy, but at the moment the tax burden is too heavy on big workers and too light on capital.
Rather than ask “how can we afford this?” try asking “how can we not?” The country is in a dire state. Cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting services and benefits haven’t worked, trying it again is daft.
Add comment