Latest news with #Corbynite
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
The NHS truths the Left don't want you to hear
Until very recently, Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to market himself as a radical health reformer, who is not afraid to poke sacred cows. While his reform-minded rhetoric always remained at a highly-abstract and general level, Streeting deserved some credit for it, because he did not have to do this. He had the courage to say things which he knew would rub some people up the wrong way, not least the Corbynite wing of his own party. Sadly, that brief period of NHS candour is now officially over. Streeting, the self-styled reformer, is no more. He and his colleagues have fully retreated into their comfort zone. During the recent local election campaign, Labour distributed a leaflet that showed a mock medical bill, and a doctor holding up a credit card reader. The message was clear: vote for us, because this is what the other lot want to do to you. On Twitter/X, Labour are now frequently posting dire warnings about the alleged evils of insurance-based healthcare systems. This is exactly that old-school NHS cultism which Streeting used to disavow until five minutes ago. It may work for him. The NHS may be falling apart, but the cult around is still going strong. In the eyes of its keenest defenders, the NHS can do no wrong. They have quietly dropped the old cliché about the NHS being 'the envy of the word', and replaced it with a slightly more subtle version, which goes something like this: Once upon a time, the NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world. But then, from 2010 on, it was systematically defunded. It was deliberately run into the ground, so that it can be privatised more easily. A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor. None of these claims are true. Let's have a look at each of them in turn. The NHS was never the best healthcare system in the world. The idea that it ever was can be traced back to a ranking compiled by the Commonwealth Fund, an American healthcare think tank, which relies on a very unusual methodology, in which medical outcomes only account for a fifth of the total score. This matters, because on medical outcomes, the NHS has always been one of the worst-performing healthcare systems in the developed world – as even the Commonwealth Fund study shows. There is no turning point after which the NHS's performance suddenly deteriorated. It was just never good in the first place. At the end of the 2010s, age-adjusted real NHS spending per capita was only marginally higher than it had been in the beginning of the decade. Put differently, the NHS budget only just about kept pace with population growth, population ageing, and inflation. This clearly constituted a slowdown in spending increases compared to the previous decade. But it does not constitute a 'defunding'. In any case: that period of relative spending restraint is already over again. The NHS budget was given a massive boost during the pandemic, which has only been partially reversed. Public healthcare spending in the UK stands at just under 9% of GDP: one of the highest levels in the world. Conspiracy theories about secret plans to privatise the NHS have been around for decades. I wrote a report on this three years ago, for which I went through the news archives, and I found warnings about the NHS's imminent demise from every year since 1980. But somehow, it never happens. The NHS remains an unusually state-centred system. Most healthcare systems, including tax-funded ones, use a mix of public, private for-profit and private non-profit providers. There are no plans – secret or otherwise – to privatise the NHS. More's the pity. Because there is nothing wrong with private healthcare systems. There are good examples of private, insurance-based healthcare systems, most notably in the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are nothing like the dreaded system of the US. These systems cover everybody: poor people are exempt from health insurance premiums and co-payments. Under these systems, rich and poor alike get faster access to medical treatment, and better medical outcomes, than they would on the NHS. The only thing these people don't get is a naff feel-good mythology around their health systems. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Health
- Telegraph
The NHS truths the Left don't want you to hear
Until very recently, Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to market himself as a radical health reformer, who is not afraid to poke sacred cows. While his reform-minded rhetoric always remained at a highly-abstract and general level, Streeting deserved some credit for it, because he did not have to do this. He had the courage to say things which he knew would rub some people up the wrong way, not least the Corbynite wing of his own party. Sadly, that brief period of NHS candour is now officially over. Streeting, the self-styled reformer, is no more. He and his colleagues have fully retreated into their comfort zone. During the recent local election campaign, Labour distributed a leaflet that showed a mock medical bill, and a doctor holding up a credit card reader. The message was clear: vote for us, because this is what the other lot want to do to you. On Twitter/X, Labour are now frequently posting dire warnings about the alleged evils of insurance-based healthcare systems. This is exactly that old-school NHS cultism which Streeting used to disavow until five minutes ago. It may work for him. The NHS may be falling apart, but the cult around is still going strong. In the eyes of its keenest defenders, the NHS can do no wrong. They have quietly dropped the old cliché about the NHS being 'the envy of the word', and replaced it with a slightly more subtle version, which goes something like this: Once upon a time, the NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world. But then, from 2010 on, it was systematically defunded. It was deliberately run into the ground, so that it can be privatised more easily. A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor. None of these claims are true. Let's have a look at each of them in turn. 'The NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world' The NHS was never the best healthcare system in the world. The idea that it ever was can be traced back to a ranking compiled by the Commonwealth Fund, an American healthcare think tank, which relies on a very unusual methodology, in which medical outcomes only account for a fifth of the total score. This matters, because on medical outcomes, the NHS has always been one of the worst-performing healthcare systems in the developed world – as even the Commonwealth Fund study shows. There is no turning point after which the NHS's performance suddenly deteriorated. It was just never good in the first place. '…it was systematically defunded' At the end of the 2010s, age-adjusted real NHS spending per capita was only marginally higher than it had been in the beginning of the decade. Put differently, the NHS budget only just about kept pace with population growth, population ageing, and inflation. This clearly constituted a slowdown in spending increases compared to the previous decade. But it does not constitute a 'defunding'. In any case: that period of relative spending restraint is already over again. The NHS budget was given a massive boost during the pandemic, which has only been partially reversed. Public healthcare spending in the UK stands at just under 9% of GDP: one of the highest levels in the world. '…so that it can be privatised…' Conspiracy theories about secret plans to privatise the NHS have been around for decades. I wrote a report on this three years ago, for which I went through the news archives, and I found warnings about the NHS's imminent demise from every year since 1980. But somehow, it never happens. The NHS remains an unusually state-centred system. Most healthcare systems, including tax-funded ones, use a mix of public, private for-profit and private non-profit providers. 'A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor' There are no plans – secret or otherwise – to privatise the NHS. More's the pity. Because there is nothing wrong with private healthcare systems. There are good examples of private, insurance-based healthcare systems, most notably in the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are nothing like the dreaded system of the US. These systems cover everybody: poor people are exempt from health insurance premiums and co-payments. Under these systems, rich and poor alike get faster access to medical treatment, and better medical outcomes, than they would on the NHS. The only thing these people don't get is a naff feel-good mythology around their health systems.
New European
27-05-2025
- Politics
- New European
Why is Kemi Badenoch so bad at politics?
Moreover, Badenoch's experience in Cabinet was in international-facing departments (specifically trade), not domestic ones. She will have spent years surrounded by civil servants explaining the sensitivities of diplomatic relations and the need to choose her words carefully – and to make sure she is briefed before she speaks. Kemi Badenoch has spent five years as a government minister, two of them in the Cabinet. This is relatively extensive government experience – more than most of the people in Keir Starmer's administration, given Labour's long time in opposition. She is not an ingenue. All of this is worth emphasising because it is incredibly easy to forget all of it when you hear Kemi Badenoch speak. More specifically, Badenoch at the weekend managed to make a series of comments so staggeringly stupid and counterproductive that the only usual excuse would be that the person saying them is vastly inexperienced, out of their depth, and being asked a question they can't reasonably be expected to answer. Suggested Reading The Tories are dead Matthew d'Ancona So it is important to remember that Badenoch is none of these things. She is an experienced cabinet minister and the leader of the opposition. In other words, she has no excuse to be giving answers as bizarre as the ones she's giving out – and any remaining tolerance for her nonsense from her party should be wearing out. Let's get to the remarks, as Badenoch made one that was merely stupid, followed in very quick succession by one that was calamitous, both in an interview with Sky News on Sunday. The first was to claim that 'Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the UK' with its aggression against Gaza. This is such a bizarre claim that it would merit an article-length dissection in itself. Israel retaliated against Gaza because of the attacks of October 7, 2023. Its untrammelled aggression and prolonged conflict has fuelled both antisemitism and Islamophobia across the world, and undermined Israel's standing even among its allies. It is widely regarded as a senseless loss of life, motivated in part by Benjamin Netanyahu's desire to cling onto power and forestall his own prosecution over corruption. Explaining how any of this represents the UK's interests – let alone to anything like the extent of being a 'proxy war' on our behalf – would be quite the task. This remark alone was thoughtless, callous and inane – but Badenoch was just getting started. To complete her thought, she added 'just like Ukraine is on behalf of Western Europe against Russia'. This is one of the talking points Russia and its advocates have been keen to push ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. It is a talking point of the Stop The War and Corbynite left, and is pushed by apologists for Putin. The Kremlin was obviously delighted. The Russian foreign minister posted on Facebook that 'Kemi Badenoch has finally called a spade a spade… Ukraine is indeed fighting a proxy war against Russia… The objective of Russia's Special Military Operation is to put an end to the proxy-war and restore peace'. This is calamitously bad from Badenoch, and it will be used time and again by Russia to suggest a former cabinet minister has somehow given the game away. Early in the invasion, Putin admitted its reason – that he regards Ukraine as part of Russia and wants to subsume it. But claims of a Russia versus the West proxy war allows the country to reframe it as a defensive project, or even an anti-imperialist one. Badenoch has, when trying to make a bizarre point about a different conflict entirely, endorsed Russia's favourite talking point. There are several possibilities as to how this happens, and none of them are good. One is simply that Badenoch said what she thinks, and this is her true belief – meaning that on top of everything else, the Conservative Party elected a Corbynite as its leader. This seems unlikely. The other is that Badenoch was speaking fast and loose, and didn't really stop to consider what 'proxy war' meant. This could be because she was woefully unprepared, or because she is unwilling to choose her words carefully. Either would make her unfit for the office she currently holds, let alone the prime ministerial office to which she aspires. Kemi Badenoch puts her foot in her mouth almost every time she opens it, which is a poor trait in an opposition leader. Usually, though, the consequences of that mostly affect only her and the Conservative Party – but this time was different. The simple truth is that the Tories have a leader who shouldn't be allowed to speak in public, right at a time when they are in a battle for their very survival as a political force. For how much longer can that be allowed to continue?
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Only Morgan McSweeney can save Labour from oblivion
It's almost as if Morgan McSweeney never existed. There has been much excited and optimistic talk of Keir Starmer's chief of staff at Number 10, and how his pugilistic political instincts have led the Prime Minister to a more robust approach towards his political opponents, particularly those within the Labour Party. 'Blue Labour', more of a philosophy than a think tank or a distinctive tribe within the party, is the vehicle by which McSweeney was expected to transform Labour's culture, policy offer and electoral prospects. But as last Thursday proved, there remains much work to be done to persuade sceptical voters that the party is on their side, or even the country's. In the era of Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, the latter is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of a disgruntled electorate, with Labour – the party of government, the party of the establishment – looking bewildered, anxious and hesitant. McSweeney's influence over Starmer and the wider party cannot be overstated; it was he who injected some iron into the party leader's soul and encouraged Starmer to take the fight to his party's hard Left, whom McSweeney believes (with justification) are a drag on the party's electoral prospects. Hence Starmer's inelegant but decisive 180 degree turn away from the ten Corbynite pledges on which he campaigned for the leadership, and the denial of Corbyn himself of the privilege of standing again as a Labour candidate. Yet if Blue Labour's philosophy is to be socially conservative but economically Left-wing, then its influence looks to have been distinctly limited in Government. Which might explain the party's poor performance at the ballot box last week. A truly socially conservative Labour Party would do more than talk a tough game when it comes to immigration and asylum. All indicators are that this administration is hardly an improvement on what we saw before under Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson. The small boats keep coming, and in record numbers, while official immigration, while expected to reduce from its absurd high of nearly one million net arrivals in 2023, is not about to fall significantly in the short term. On cultural issues which might be thought to be covered by the term 'socially conservative', Labour has, for the most part, gone along with trans ideology, with cabinet members going to great lengths to avoid answering the question, 'what is a woman?' Only the intervention of the Supreme Court offered the Government a way by which ministers and MPs could start talking plain English again when it came to gender. Blue Labour, with its working-class credentials displayed prominently on its sleeve, would not have hesitated to take sides against those in authority, in towns right across the country, who turned a blind eye to the mass rape and abuse of white working-class girls at the hands of organised Pakistani gangs. Surely there can be no more perfect campaign for any organisation to focus on than holding to account, and perhaps even prosecuting, the police officers, council officials and politicians who prioritised 'community relations' ahead of the safety and dignity of the young victims. But instead of taking their lead from the likes of McSweeney and Jonathan Rutherford, a former communist and now advocate of Blue Labour working as an adviser in Number 10, ministers are so determined not to investigate the scandal or even talk about the issue that they are prepared to accuse anyone raising it of racist dog whistles. This is not how it was supposed to go. Labour in office is behaving more like Ed Miliband's party from 2010 to 2015, when it courted whatever popular middle class band wagon that happened to be attracting the most headlines at the time, than a revitalised, re-energised organisation committed to acting on working people's priorities. Today's opinion poll by YouGov, giving Reform a seven point lead over Labour (and a 12-point lead over the Conservatives) is probably down to the post-polling day excitement generated by Reform's impressive performance last Thursday, and the figures might well even out in the medium term, back to an even three-way split among the three main parties. But even this would be potentially disastrous for Labour. Polls can change, but as things stand today Labour cannot count on holding on to its overall Commons majority unless it can break out of its current political and philosophical malaise. What is the point of Blue Labour, or even McSweeney himself, if they prove unable to broaden Starmer's effectiveness in combatting the hard Left to the party's other, external threats? What is the point of a 'socially conservative' mission that talks a good game but which has no impact on policy until the peculiar circumstances in which the country's Supreme Court gives ministers permission to show leadership? McSweeney has been a positive force in Number 10. But unless he can shape a path to a reversal in the party's fortunes, he could yet suffer the same fate as his predecessor as chief of staff, the former civil servant, Sue Gray. And without his éminence grise, Starmer himself would have to concede his own days at Number 10 were numbered. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
17-04-2025
- General
- Telegraph
The secrets to a long and happy marriage (according to Telegraph readers)
'Never go to bed on a quarrel', 'have your own separate interests' and 'give and take' – when it comes to the secrets of lasting relationships, there are plenty of hoary cliches. But being with the same person for 20, 40, even 70 years requires much more than platitudes. Recently, Queen Camilla offered her own view on what underpins her happy marriage to King Charles: 'Friendship. Laughing at the same things, getting on with life.' She has previously said, 'It's not easy sometimes, but we do always try to have a point in the day when we meet… we sit down together and have a cup of tea and discuss the day.' For less exalted couples, it may be more about remembering to put the bins out than finding time in the banqueting schedule. For my husband Andy and me, the glue that keeps us together (a mere 11 years so far) is shared adoration of our pets, a GSOH (good sense of humour), basic compatibility and, most crucially, a synchronised tea-making schedule. Twin beds are passion killers Unlike me, however, Bettina Thwaite, 80, married for 50 years, could be considered an expert in lasting marriage, and suggests it's perfectly acceptable to go to bed on a quarrel – 'but do have a double bed,' she advises, in direct contravention of the current 'sleep divorce' trend. 'Any arguments you might have had over dinner are very difficult to maintain in a double bed. Twin beds are passion killers.' Bettina is one of many Telegraph readers who subsequently wrote in to offer their own tips following the Queen's revelations, and believes that shared political views are also important. 'They don't have to be identical, that would be boring, but if one of you is a Corbynite and the other is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan then, eventually, you are going to be pretty unsympathetic to each other,' she observes. And while money might seem a joyless topic amid the first flush of romance, Bettina is adamant that it must be discussed. 'Do talk about this from the very start. Yes, one of you might be very tight, while the other is a spendthrift. But you must reach some sort of agreement since, in my experience, money, even more than sex, causes more rows than anything else,' she says. 'My husband, 86, and I have always had pretty similar views, fortunately.' Finally, she recommends, 'That awful phrase, ' date nights '. Once a month we make a point of going out to our local Côte and treating ourselves,' Bettina says. 'We don't talk about mundane things but try to appreciate each other. It's so easy to take each other for granted over the years.' Indeed, never mind 'separate hobbies' – often, it's enjoying the same things that keep couples ticking along. Charles and Camilla love fly fishing on the River Dee, while other couples enjoy board games, running, pug breeding or, in our case, watching reruns of Vera with a glass of wine. Retain a sense of self Psychotherapist Geraldine Joaquim, 55, has been married for 32 years, and agrees that common interests can be conducive to lasting love. 'My husband and I took up scuba diving in our early 20s and regularly dived in the UK, with a club as well as on holiday,' she says. Nevertheless, she adds, 'it's also important to retain a sense of self within the relationship. I've always been into arty things – I have a pottery studio in the garden – and my husband loves clay pigeon shooting. We have no interest in each other's hobbies but we happily 'give space' so we can do them.' Joaquim also recommends travel as a bonding mechanism, when possible. 'Seeing each other in different situations, relying on each other in places that are out of the norm, having a go at activities – these have all brought us closer over the years,' she says. 'We have so much shared experience – from diving with tiger sharks in South Africa to camping on the rim of a volcano in Indonesia. We've even done seal diving in the North Sea and ghost hunting in East Anglia!' Most vitally, she advises, 'shared values really matter, and are a must when raising a family. That's not to say we have exactly the same views on things but, in principle, we are aiming for the same outcomes: independence, kindness, love of animals, happiness.' A good dollop of compromise on both sides Brian Varrell met his wife Eve on a flight from Guernsey to Manchester in 1978, and says, 'We're still inseparable and she's the most perfect life partner.' He explains that what underpins their long marriage is 'listening, understanding and a good dollop of compromise on both sides'. Both were recently divorced when they met, and Brian points out that they had already learnt not to take love for granted. 'Mutual belief in a pre-prandial snifter or two does no harm either,' he wisely adds. Divorce can in fact prove the grounding for a far better relationship, after the first marriage has demonstrated what can go wrong. Telegraph reader Malcolm Hobbs, 82, from the Forest of Dean, has been married to his second wife, Sandy, 78, for 42 'wonderful years'. 'We married on my 40th birthday, which is of course when life begins – and I cannot forget our wedding anniversary! Our happiness is about mutual respect,' he says. 'We hold common values, we can talk about them and can laugh at our own shortcomings. 'Why did this one work when the first one didn't?' He muses. 'Shared values. My first wife and I couldn't agree on children's education, work ethic, savings plans or decorating colours.' They parted after 15 years of wrangling. 'Two years later, I married again – and she is my best friend.' Don't knock your partner Friendship and respect are generally at the heart of a long-lasting marriage, agrees psychotherapist Lulu Sinclair. 'When you got married, you liked and loved each other,' she says. 'Don't fall into the often trendy habit of knocking your partner, because respect on both sides remains important no matter how long you've been together.' Nishtha Patel has been married to Mayur for almost 35 years. 'We had a semi-arranged marriage,' she says. 'We spent less than 24 hours together before we decided to say yes. What makes a relationship endure is patience, forgiveness and, above all, respect for one another,' she agrees. 'There will always be small things that can irritate. The secret lies in learning to accept and adapt, rather than allowing minor frustrations to build into something bigger. Being able to say sorry and not stewing over arguments is crucial.' Patel also recommends talking when it's necessary. 'Sitting down and talking things through, whether it's making plans or resolving disagreements, is essential. At times, learning to agree to disagree is just as important.' Like the royal couple, a shared hour or two every day is a must for Nishtha and Mayur. 'It's an important time to switch off from work, listen to each other, and talk about how the day has gone. It shows you genuinely care about each other's lives.' But while most long-term happy couples cite respect and communication, surprisingly few recommend constant discussion of feelings. I learnt the hard way from my previous marriage that prodding at wounds is unwise. Now, we only talk if and when we're ready to forgive and move on. It's repair and resilience, rather than re-hashing, that works, agrees psychologist Dr Carolyne Keenan. Not every difficult phase is a crisis 'Conflict is inevitable. The key isn't avoiding it, but learning how to repair after it,' she explains. 'That might mean apologising, or listening even when you feel defensive. Whether it's boredom, irritation or feeling misunderstood, long-term relationships involve periods of emotional discomfort,' she adds. 'Resilience in a marriage often comes down to learning to stay through those moments rather than assuming discomfort means something is broken. Not every difficult phase is a crisis.' Most of all, perhaps, the true key to a long-term love which survives the soaring highs and plummeting lows, is a degree of selflessness. 'It sounds corny, but when you love someone, it's about wanting them to thrive,' says Geradine Joaquim. 'It doesn't have to be to the detriment of yourself, but it may involve putting their needs first. And in an equal relationship that goes both ways.' Basically, if you want your love to last, be kind – and take turns to make the tea.
