But of a change in message from "we don't need you lefties, fuck off and vote Green or whatever"
Labour's two biggest policy promises are the most ambitious green policies in this country's history, and the biggest expansion of workers' rights in half a century, so I don't see how the suggestion they're not interested in appealling to the left can be true.
Don't get me wrong I like those policies, and hope Labour win, but the messaging for the past few years has been very alienating to anyone on the left. When Labour frontbenchers are going out and calling Margaret Thatcher a "visionary leader", or Wes Streeting blaming "middle-class lefties" for opposing NHS privatisation then it makes you think "maybe they're not the party I was hoping they were". These aren't gaffes, they're part of a coordinated strategy to target more naturally right-wing voters. Because they don't think the left have anywhere to go (and they're right, but they might stay home).
If you select only the messages designed to appeal to the right (to whom they have to appeal if they want to win!), sure. But they've also had plenty of leftwing messaging, comparing their plans to Attlee, most obviously. As to Streeting's comments in particular, it's the 'middle class' bit that's important: he's criticising privileged people prioritising grandstanding over getting things done.
More to the point, the policies are much more important than the odd bit of rhetoric.
Wanting the NHS to remain in public hands isn't a middle-class opinion, it's a left-wing one. The reason he uses the word "middle-class" is to characterise that argument as one that can only be made by someone in an ivory tower, insulated from the real problems of the world where we have to use private providers. And I disagree with that characterisation: I think that our use of private providers to fill gaps in the NHS has massively increased the cost and only served to enrich the private medical industry. But making that point makes me a middle-class luvvy who doesn't know the real world, unlike Wes Streeting who has worked in student politics, think tanks and political parties his entire life (apart from that time he was at PwC as a public sector consultant, helping these companies get more of those lucrative contracts).
Wanting the NHS to refuse to use private companies, even if that might mean better outcomes, which is the actual policy and the goal, is a privileged position.
Streeting is not proposing the NHS 'no longer be in public hands', so whether views on that are middle class, leftwing or whatever, are not relevant.
Nobody's asking for worse outcomes - it's a difference of opinion of what will actually work. Saying people want everyone to suffer so they can have their way is just being disingenuous.
That's also not a fair characterisation of Streeting's argument. It's not that they want people to suffer, just that they're not exposed to the consequences of the policies they're advocating.
My point is that it's not only middle-class people using private healthcare who think this. And Wes Streeting knows that. He just doesn't want to argue for his market-based approach (because it's really unpopular) so he just mischaracterises the opposition to it.
Private healthcare doesn't come into it. It's about people who don't regularly interact with the health service, which is most of us, having stronger opinions about how healthcare is delivered than whether it is.
Again, it's a difference of opinion about how it's delivered, not whether it's delivered. Can you find me a single example of someone saying they don't want the NHS at all unless it's 100% publicly delivered? Because that's the imaginary person you and Wes Streeting are arguing against.
People (in this very thread, so not strawmen!) mischaracterising using any private companies in delivery as taking the NHS out of public hands was exactly the argument that he was responding to.
When long time Tory donors like Lord Harris and John Cauldwell switch to Labour …. It’s not because things are going to change.
People always say this stuff. Then Labour win and we get things like the NHS or the minimum wage. Next election, they go right back to saying nothing will change. I'm much more interested by the people trying to get things done than the kneejerk cynicism that nothing will happen anyway.
Perhaps people say it because they understand political reality ?
Captains of industry don’t donate to the Labour Party because they want a higher minimum wage, and increased taxation to fund public services - quite the opposite In fact.
They might not want those things, but the 'Captains of industry' who donated to Labour in 1997 helped deliver those things. And that's just reality, political or not.
Pretty sure that Labour didn't deliver the NHS in 1997. What they did deliver was saddling the NHS with billions in PFI debt that has gone a not inconsiderable distance to putting it into the state it's in now.
They delivered the minimum wage in '97, which is what I was asked about, alongside countless other policies which made the country better.
gasp
So that's how it works! I'm relieved someone finally filled me in.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Starmer is sitting, shirt sleeves rolled up and steaming mug of black coffee in front of him, in a meeting room at the Royal Horticultural Halls in central London before a rally marking the final weekend of the campaign.
The polished wooden table is laden with plates of cakes and piles of teacups and saucers, which rattle slightly when he bangs his fist for emphasis.
While he blames the Tories and their years of chaos – over Partygate, Covid contracts, Liz Truss’s mini-budget – for the disillusionment so many people feel, he does acknowledge the Labour party failed to step up.
This would start with immediate “first steps”, in the first few weeks of power, followed later by transformational change on things like economic growth across the UK, radical reform of the NHS and the green transition.
Starmer, who has faced criticism from the left over his response to the Gaza conflict, dismissed reports that Labour would not recognise a Palestinian state before the end of the peace process as “without foundation”.
But at home, it remains far from clear how Labour would address deep-seated problems like homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances and pensions.
The original article contains 1,428 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
people did vote for it when they made you leader but then you abandoned literally all the pledges you ran on to get them to vote for you
Always good when left wing people repeat Tory talking points.
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(