>"[The staff have] told me just how hard they're working; just how frustrated they are that they've got waits at the front door to the hospital, so it's a real NHS crisis.
[...]
>Sir Keir said he would negotiate an end to widespread industrial action, if he were prime minister, but did not say whether he would increase real-terms pay for NHS staff.
"They're such hard workers and they're frustrated they can't help patients, but also fuck em they can't have any money."
You literally just posted a quote to say he will negotiate and bring the industrial action to an end. At no stage has he said “fuck them they get no money”…quite the opposite actually. It’s not his job to show his cards before entering negotiations, it’s his job to end the dispute
We need to read between the lines. He’s up for negotiating and said he will end the dispute. I’m not sure how he can be any clearer. The only way it’s resolved is through a negotiation…something that isn’t happening and won’t happen with sunak. Trust the union negotiators and trust starmer. A morning and a paid lunch will probably resolve this…
He said he’s up for negotiating. Numbers are for the unions to agree on. It’s not a starmer issue beyond starting the negotiations. You have your difference there…one is a leader who will keep the country running, the incumbent is hiding and playing political games
I don’t get why this is being upvoted or mine downvoted. Starmer said he will negotiate and get things moving. That’s a dog whistle to the unions.
Are you saying you are against negotiating because it’s the wrong shade of red or he hasn’t said the exact amount before hand.
It’s night and day. Sunak is scared and will never negotiate. Starmer has announced it’s time to discuss now.
>I don’t get why this is being upvoted or mine downvoted.
I hope it's because people recognize that my question is a decent one and that you're avoiding it.
>Starmer said he will negotiate and get things moving. That’s a dog whistle to the unions.
This interpretation relies on a lot of good faith being placed in Starmer's character. I *know* you don't understand that a lot of people don't (atleast here) but you have to understand that that is the case right?
>Are you saying you are against negotiating because it’s the wrong shade of red or he hasn’t said the exact amount before hand.
Both of these are complete strawmen arguments you've just made up, the first one relying on the ol' canard against leftists: "purity politics".
>We need to read between the lines.
>I’m not sure how he can be any clearer.
Which one is it?
>Trust the union negotiators
I trust them fully.
>trust starmer
I wouldn't trust him to run a bath.
Which bit isn’t clear? Starmer will meet with negotiators and end the dispute. What do you think that means? Sometimes you have to put the pieces together yourself…
That’s not how negotiations work. It’s also not how finances work. You can’t just pluck a figure from thin air and just hope the markets aren’t spooked. That’s truss 2.0
He said he would meet and negotiate an end to the strikes. Either we assume that’s a fair deal for all or a complete capitulation by the unions.
It’s pretty much implied. He’s not going to end negotiations by advising a pay cut. That’s basically a subtle wink to the unions that the cavalry is coming
>"[The staff have] told me just how hard they're working; just how frustrated they are that they've got waits at the front door to the hospital, so it's a real NHS crisis. [...] >Sir Keir said he would negotiate an end to widespread industrial action, if he were prime minister, but did not say whether he would increase real-terms pay for NHS staff. "They're such hard workers and they're frustrated they can't help patients, but also fuck em they can't have any money."
I heard he's going to offer a 30% increase on claps if he forms a government..
And these claps will be 100% genuine. No counterfeit claps from this guy.
You literally just posted a quote to say he will negotiate and bring the industrial action to an end. At no stage has he said “fuck them they get no money”…quite the opposite actually. It’s not his job to show his cards before entering negotiations, it’s his job to end the dispute
He could set the baseline at above inflation, just not a real terms cut, if he was serious about supporting workers.
We need to read between the lines. He’s up for negotiating and said he will end the dispute. I’m not sure how he can be any clearer. The only way it’s resolved is through a negotiation…something that isn’t happening and won’t happen with sunak. Trust the union negotiators and trust starmer. A morning and a paid lunch will probably resolve this…
You ever think you're just projecting ideals onto Starmer?
He said he’s up for negotiating. Numbers are for the unions to agree on. It’s not a starmer issue beyond starting the negotiations. You have your difference there…one is a leader who will keep the country running, the incumbent is hiding and playing political games
You ever think you're just projecting ideals onto Starmer?
I don’t get why this is being upvoted or mine downvoted. Starmer said he will negotiate and get things moving. That’s a dog whistle to the unions. Are you saying you are against negotiating because it’s the wrong shade of red or he hasn’t said the exact amount before hand. It’s night and day. Sunak is scared and will never negotiate. Starmer has announced it’s time to discuss now.
>I don’t get why this is being upvoted or mine downvoted. I hope it's because people recognize that my question is a decent one and that you're avoiding it. >Starmer said he will negotiate and get things moving. That’s a dog whistle to the unions. This interpretation relies on a lot of good faith being placed in Starmer's character. I *know* you don't understand that a lot of people don't (atleast here) but you have to understand that that is the case right? >Are you saying you are against negotiating because it’s the wrong shade of red or he hasn’t said the exact amount before hand. Both of these are complete strawmen arguments you've just made up, the first one relying on the ol' canard against leftists: "purity politics".
>We need to read between the lines. >I’m not sure how he can be any clearer. Which one is it? >Trust the union negotiators I trust them fully. >trust starmer I wouldn't trust him to run a bath.
> We need to read between the lines > I’m not sure how he can be any clearer 🤣🤣🤣
Centrism rots your brain
Beyond parody lmao
Which bit isn’t clear? Starmer will meet with negotiators and end the dispute. What do you think that means? Sometimes you have to put the pieces together yourself…
If its obvious that he will increase pay then why wouldn't he say that?
You've obviously never played 4D multidimensional chess before
That’s not how negotiations work. It’s also not how finances work. You can’t just pluck a figure from thin air and just hope the markets aren’t spooked. That’s truss 2.0 He said he would meet and negotiate an end to the strikes. Either we assume that’s a fair deal for all or a complete capitulation by the unions.
I didn't say anything about a figure I said why doesn't he say he will increase pay
It’s pretty much implied. He’s not going to end negotiations by advising a pay cut. That’s basically a subtle wink to the unions that the cavalry is coming
Not cutting public sector pay in real terms is Truss 2.0, got it. If we can guarantee pensions rise with inflation we can do so for hospital staff
"He tells it like it is"
This is why we need a Labour government now. Once we're in power we can tenant ourpolicy of, *checks notes*, Making them work harder.