On the NHS. The PB Tories are on a sugar rush like they were with Europe. Doesn't mean it will do them any good electorally.
As for PMQ's if you only sure what the BBC has shown then you would think it was a win for Ed Miliband. When I accept that if you watched the whole thing it was not.
A senior Taliban leader has said he was 'shocked' by the attack on schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai last year, in which she nearly died. Remember, her 'crime' was wanting to go to school.
However, he has refused to apologise or condemn the attack. Indeed, he says he wished he had been able to 'advise' her before the attack.
There is a word that is used too often on here, and I will use it for him: scum.
OGH. We will see..you will be proved wrong. Crosby will eviscerate the Labour Party, he knows what he is doing, and they know it, but carry on with your wishful thinking..
I haven't seen much discussion of Clegg's primary school policy about grading kids - it seems to be getting rather a lot of flack in the media.
It would be very useful information to have. Its hard to say for sure as the details seem a bit vague so far. I think its a good idea and most countries would agree as its what they do too. However, It should though not just stop at Year 6 but be in secondary school too. Amongst many things it would do if that happens, is to give evidence for how good a secondary school really is since you would see how students at that school did relative to other schools. It would also help for evidence if Oxbridge discriminates against state schools or schools down play expectations for bright students.
I could go into the details for and against but that would take a very long essay and I need a break from essays
Communications and strategy figures are only as good as their last campaign. Crosby helped Boris by going after Ken (Boris still had most to do with his win lest we forget his approval ratings compared to Clegg, little Ed or even Cammie) but his record with Michael Howard on an actual general election is far less impressive.
Alastair Campbell had a target on his back from day one but as he himself knew when you become the story for too long, out you go, and out he did go eventually. He wasn't the first and he won't be the last.
A senior Taliban leader has said he was 'shocked' by the attack on schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai last year, in which she nearly died. Remember, her 'crime' was wanting to go to school.
However, he has refused to apologise or condemn the attack. Indeed, he says he wished he had been able to 'advise' her before the attack.
There is a word that is used too often on here, and I will use it for him: scum.
What was interesting - and a touch depressing - was the comment from Rob Crilly, the DT journalist saying that some people in Pakistan have turned against her because she has not condemned US drone attacks and - in the Taliban's letter - that education should only be used to advance the cause of Islam.
This is the battle they think they can win. Labour are on the side of the producers, Tories on the side of patients.
I'm not sure they think it's a battle they can win, but it's a battle they need to fight in order to reduce the advantage Labour (inexplicably, given their record) gets from it.
From a non-partisan perspective - I want the NHS to do a good job, and I don't care who provides the end service provided it meets the required standard, is transparent about its performance and gives us value for money - i.e. precisely what I'd expect from any other service I pay for.
Claiming its staff are heroes and saints and angels is bizarre - they're paid to be there and do a good job [make me better and send me home if they can]. They are generally paid more than the average bod doing another and chose to do it.
Organisationally, it's not perfect but then nowhere is. And no organisation should be protected like a sacred cow from criticism by anyone.
This is the battle they think they can win. Labour are on the side of the producers, Tories on the side of patients.
I'm not sure they think it's a battle they can win, but it's a battle they need to fight in order to reduce the advantage Labour (inexplicably, given their record) gets from it.
From a non-partisan perspective.
From a "serial labour voters" perspective surely? ;^ )
If Andy Burnham cares about defending the NHS and protecting it from right wing assaults, he should quit the day the royal baby is born or EdM should move/sack him.
From watching the debate in the HoC, he looked as if he was heading for a breakdown of some sort while unsuccessfully trying to prevent himself from drowning.
There are times when a man has to lay down his political life for the greater good and for Andy Burnham that time is fast approaching.
And what about more recent history such as Back Boris? Mr Crosby now lives in London and has done for sometime IIRC - he appears to be doing a good job now and understand the UK scene.
And who knows how Howard would have done in 2005 if anyone else had been in charge. It was 8yrs ago and a lot has changed. When did Crosby arrive vs polling day?
OGH. We will see..you will be proved wrong. Crosby will eviscerate the Labour Party, he knows what he is doing, and they know it, but carry on with your wishful thinking..
They see any new initiative and see it as solving all their problems.
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
On the NHS. The PB Tories are on a sugar rush like they were with Europe. Doesn't mean it will do them any good electorally.
As for PMQ's if you only sure what the BBC has shown then you would think it was a win for Ed Miliband. When I accept that if you watched the whole thing it was not.
Here we go again......Shades of the vendetta that was waged against a particular Conservative donor, and look how well that one worked out in the end!
LabourList - Labour’s “Get Crosby” Lobbying Bill amendments "The Labour Party have announced their amendments to the government’s Lobbying Bill this evening. And they seem designed with one goal in mind – Get Crosby."
They see any new initiative and see it as solving all their problems.
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
On the NHS. The PB Tories are on a sugar rush like they were with Europe. Doesn't mean it will do them any good electorally.
As for PMQ's if you only sure what the BBC has shown then you would think it was a win for Ed Miliband. When I accept that if you watched the whole thing it was not.
Maybe Crosby is aiming for all those missing Tories from 1992 onwards, and the many millions who never vote?
I haven't seen much discussion of Clegg's primary school policy about grading kids - it seems to be getting rather a lot of flack in the media.
It would be very useful information to have. Its hard to say for sure as the details seem a bit vague so far. I think its a good idea and most countries would agree as its what they do too. However, It should though not just stop at Year 6 but be in secondary school too. Amongst many things it would do if that happens, is to give evidence for how good a secondary school really is since you would see how students at that school did relative to other schools. It would also help for evidence if Oxbridge discriminates against state schools or schools down play expectations for bright students.
I could go into the details for and against but that would take a very long essay and I need a break from essays
Communications and strategy figures are only as good as their last campaign. Crosby helped Boris by going after Ken (Boris still had most to do with his win lest we forget his approval ratings compared to Clegg, little Ed or even Cammie) but his record with Michael Howard on an actual general election is far less impressive.
Alastair Campbell had a target on his back from day one but as he himself knew when you become the story for too long, out you go, and out he did go eventually. He wasn't the first and he won't be the last.
Karl Rove, like Paul Gascoigne, was good in his day. Alas now, not so much.
And no organisation should be protected like a sacred cow from criticism by anyone.
Alan Johnson's response has been by far the most sensible from labour for me. He at least acknowledged that mistakes were made on labour's watch, possibly with the best of intentions.
Far better than the 'Oi that toy is mine, you're not playing with it' attitude we've seen from others.
Here we go again......Shades of the vendetta that was waged against a particular Conservative donor, and look how well that one worked out in the end!
LabourList - Labour’s “Get Crosby” Lobbying Bill amendments "The Labour Party have announced their amendments to the government’s Lobbying Bill this evening. And they seem designed with one goal in mind – Get Crosby."
At least Labour are aiming at one person. The Tories are targeting millions through the trade union aspects of the proposed legislation. I know which I think is smarter politics!
And no organisation should be protected like a sacred cow from criticism by anyone.
Alan Johnson's response has been by far the most sensible from labour for me. He at least acknowledged that mistakes were made on labour's watch, possibly with the best of intentions.
Far better than the 'Oi that toy is mine, you're not playing with it' attitude we've seen from others.
I have a lot of time for AJ - unfortunately he was housetrained very quickly at DoH. He's just a bit too nice - which is also his appeal.
Mike, it really does depend on just how effective Crosby is in undermining the Labour Party as a viable alternative Government, a very different objective from the one he had last time when he ran Howard's GE campaign. And if successful, its going to make it that much harder for Labour to GTVO or motivate former Libdems to vote tactically. We are in different times, and I suspect that Cameron's stance on issues like Gay Marriage etc is going to make it far harder for the Labour party.
They see any new initiative and see it as solving all their problems.
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
On the NHS. The PB Tories are on a sugar rush like they were with Europe. Doesn't mean it will do them any good electorally.
As for PMQ's if you only sure what the BBC has shown then you would think it was a win for Ed Miliband. When I accept that if you watched the whole thing it was not.
I wonder whether AfD might be closer to the 5% threshold than the polls are currently recording. In Germany a lot of people are still embarrassed about admitting to being anti-European and it may be that there's a bit of a spiral of silence as regards support for AfD. So instead of being on 3% they could be on 4-5%.
What evidence have you got that there are a lot of Germans embarrassed about admitting they are anti European ?
from FAZ this am. EU becoming more popular but still in negative territory by 2-1. CDU seen as most pro-EU.
Yes but are those people anti European embarrassed that they are ?
quite obviously not. The biggest sceptics will be working germans ( Bild readers) and particularist Bavarians. Germans tend not to be backward about coming forward.
I think your characterisation of the CDU as the most pro-European of Germany's parties is incorrect. If I were to rank their Euro-enthusiasm, I would say
1. SPD 2. CDU/CSU 3. The Greens 4. The FDP 5. Der Linke 6. AfD
Things are also complicated in Germany by three factors:
1. If you are a Eurosceptic, and see your party is polling 2-3% in the polls, you might well tactically vote FDP, which has made some pretty Eurosceptic noises in the past. If you reckon the AfD is unlikely to reach 5%, because that's what the polls say, then that is a logical position to take.
2. The German economy has been through a long boom. Unemployment is at a 20 year low. While there are a lot of mildly Eurosceptic Germans, with a booming economy, many of them are unlikely to care enough about the EU to make it the sole way they want to cast their vote. (AfD, like UKIP of old, is a bit too much of a single issue party at the moment.)
3. There is no Farage in Germany. The politicians who make up the AfD are mostly frustrated and failed politicians from other parties who bring their own baggage. Now, it is quite possible that an articulate, credible Eurosceptic leadership will emerge, but I would suggest it is more likely to come from within the FDP than from the AfD.
If Andy Burnham cares about defending the NHS and protecting it from right wing assaults, he should quit the day the royal baby is born or EdM should move/sack him.
From watching the debate in the HoC, he looked as if he was heading for a breakdown of some sort while unsuccessfully trying to prevent himself from drowning.
There are times when a man has to lay down his political life for the greater good and for Andy Burnham that time is fast approaching.
If he struggles against a risible figure like Hunt then he really is of no use whatsoever. Little Ed will take a hit for it in the short term though the Lansley debacle and him being booted overboard means it is hardly unprecedented.
After the dust has settled this is all going to be about who is willing to implement Francis and Keogh and come up with the most effective proposals for fixing the problem. Clegg will also have to come out one way or another as his bizarre silence over all this simply isn't sustainable.
The NHS is going to be up there as a big voter concern as usual come the general election. It won't be the primary focus like the economy with it's reliance on any 'feel good factor', yet it's an issue that can sway more than enough voters who could be on the fence.
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
Neil, thanks to Labour links to Unions such as UNITE, and also the way that Ed Miliband became Labour Leader makes it far harder for them to build up a head of steam over Crosby. By the GE, the public might just be vaguely aware that the Labour party loathe and fear the Conservatives campaign manager, but they will also know just how much the Labour gets in funding from those Unions and how much influence that buys.
Here we go again......Shades of the vendetta that was waged against a particular Conservative donor, and look how well that one worked out in the end!
LabourList - Labour’s “Get Crosby” Lobbying Bill amendments "The Labour Party have announced their amendments to the government’s Lobbying Bill this evening. And they seem designed with one goal in mind – Get Crosby."
At least Labour are aiming at one person. The Tories are targeting millions through the trade union aspects of the proposed legislation. I know which I think is smarter politics!
Keep on saying this to yourself - the Tories can NEVER win on the NHS
Best strategy is to shut up.
For the Tories winning on the NHS just means dragging Labour down to the same level which should be easy enough because of all the problems. All it takes is hiding their fangs (very difficult) and focusing on the right things long enough i.e. the target culture and the way the nomenklatura are a student union gravy train (very easy).
They already did it once - most trusted on NHS - in 2010 and then threw it away.
I'm not talking about Labour and the trade unions. I'm talking about the Tories and the trade unions. I'm suggesting that relentlessly attacking organisations that represent millions of people (such as in the lobbying bill) is not great politics.
Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
Why are labour desperate to get rid of Crosby then? Why the vendetta? Why the demands for sacking?
Right now, Labour are desperate to divert attention away from the NHS - and the economy. Their pool of subjects is turning into a puddle so Crosby is one of those old favourites to be wheeled out as a hate-figure to make themselves feel better.
Did talking about Ashcroft have any impact on the Tory vote? Or the Saatchis? I can't think of any. The lobby will bore us to tears with accusations and the Guardian will run stories about him for days on end - and it will have zip impact on the Man in the Street.
Keep on saying this to yourself - the Tories can NEVER win on the NHS
Best strategy is to shut up.
For the Tories winning on the NHS just means dragging Labour down to the same level which should be easy enough because of all the problems. All it takes is hiding their fangs (very difficult) and focusing on the right things long enough i.e. the target culture and the way the nomenklatura are a student union gravy train (very easy).
They already did it once - most trusted on NHS - in 2010 and then threw it away.
They see any new initiative and see it as solving all their problems.
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
It's that simple.
Saving the NHS from the evil privatizing Tories is the single biggest motivator for Labour voters - or was anyway. If they see Labour as equally bad (even if for different reasons) then that's a big drop in certainty to vote if they're walking - or a medium sized drop for postal voters.
They see any new initiative and see it as solving all their problems.
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
It's that simple.
The most baffling thing is why Cammie doesn't just get Crosby to do the job he was hired to do. He was hired to do to little Ed what he did to Ken. The dog whistling on Europe and immigration backfired spectacularly for the locals and Eastleigh as it was always destined to do. The dog whistling was also crippling for Michael Howard.
Cammie requires his backbenchers to STFU about Europe and the kippers from now until 2015 or he's just going to see a repeat of the shambles of them running about like headless chickens boosting the kipper vote. Now that they have seemingly finally calmed down he gets a neck and neck with labour in a ICM poll and it's hardly rocket science to know having the tory party finally look united is an electoral necessity.
Crosby should be working on little Ed while Cammie should be getting back to detox for those lib dem and centrist voters.
Blowing up the NHS into this kind of "punch and judy politics" might well make labour suffer for a while but labour isn't in power while Hunt's approval ratings are a joke so it's merely going to hurt the tories even more as it does so.
"(a) that David Cameron and Lynton Crosby had a discussion about plain packaging for cigarettes along the lines of, “We can’t discuss plain packaging for cigarettes because of your client list”; and
(b) that having Labour bang on about Crosby, who most normal people, if pressed, would say was a folk rock musician, suits the Prime Minister down to the ground?"
Keep on saying this to yourself - the Tories can NEVER win on the NHS
Best strategy is to shut up.
For the Tories winning on the NHS just means dragging Labour down to the same level which should be easy enough because of all the problems. All it takes is hiding their fangs (very difficult) and focusing on the right things long enough i.e. the target culture and the way the nomenklatura are a student union gravy train (very easy).
They already did it once - most trusted on NHS - in 2010 and then threw it away.
"Voters still prefer Labour to the Conservatives where the NHS and public health are concerned, according to research by pollsters ICM. ...But this is the only major area where the government leads the Tories - by just 1 per cent"
around the same time.
It didn't last long as a i recall but it shows it's easily possible (because of all the problems) if they can manage to hide their fangs long enough (which is the bit that's hard).
"(a) that David Cameron and Lynton Crosby had a discussion about plain packaging for cigarettes along the lines of, “We can’t discuss plain packaging for cigarettes because of your client list”; and
(b) that having Labour bang on about Crosby, who most normal people, if pressed, would say was a folk rock musician, suits the Prime Minister down to the ground?"
I thought that was rather good - that the Lobby are trying to turn it into something is dull and predictable. Jim Pickard got shirty with me when I said many of us really didn't care who CCHQ employed!
They see any new initiative and see it as solving all their problems.
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
On the NHS. The PB Tories are on a sugar rush like they were with Europe. Doesn't mean it will do them any good electorally.
As for PMQ's if you only sure what the BBC has shown then you would think it was a win for Ed Miliband. When I accept that if you watched the whole thing it was not.
It's not that simple.
Why are you taking the 2010 Lab voters (let alone the LD switchers) as a constant?
We are now heading towards Lab and many New Lab voters will feel more comfortable with the Cons than Old Lab.
That and the Cons, once again, have saved the world economy from Labour.
I think the "it all depends how many LDs return to/stay with Lab" meme is no longer 100% relevant.
Keep on saying this to yourself - the Tories can NEVER win on the NHS
Best strategy is to shut up.
For the Tories winning on the NHS just means dragging Labour down to the same level which should be easy enough because of all the problems. All it takes is hiding their fangs (very difficult) and focusing on the right things long enough i.e. the target culture and the way the nomenklatura are a student union gravy train (very easy).
They already did it once - most trusted on NHS - in 2010 and then threw it away.
"Voters still prefer Labour to the Conservatives where the NHS and public health are concerned, according to research by pollsters ICM. ...But this is the only major area where the government leads the Tories - by just 1 per cent"
around the same time.
It didn't last long as a i recall but it shows it's easily possible (because of all the problems) if they can manage to hide their fangs long enough (which is the bit that's hard).
I may be mistaken but even the very public Alistair Campbell didn't stop people voting Labour. He represented a lot of what many didn't like, but endlessly mentioning his name didn't butter any parsnips for the Tories.
Why the Lobby go down these rabbit holes is beyond me. And they have the cheek to take the pee out of the LDs obsessing over electoral reform...
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
The PB Tories don't care about the minutia of who runs an election campaign and strategy.
Watson quits as campaign chief in new Labour crisis
THE Labour party was plunged into turmoil last night after its election campaign chief quit amid claims his trade union allies were attempting to rig the selection of candidates for Westminster.
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
Neil, the success of the last Conservative Government in curbing the powers of the Unions through legislation certainly suggests that its not necessarily bad politics!
I'm not talking about Labour and the trade unions. I'm talking about the Tories and the trade unions. I'm suggesting that relentlessly attacking organisations that represent millions of people (such as in the lobbying bill) is not great politics.
A new Israeli independent TV station, i24newsTV has opened with offices in Tel-Aviv. It eventually hopes to rival Al-Jazeera. I'm telling you all this because my granddaughter is something or other in this organisation. (Chuffed, proud grandfather)
BBC and Sky, two news organisations ,and I use the term lightly, that will be as sick as the Labour Pary at the GE.Mr Crosby will no doubt have them in the cross hairs.. No little tit bits for six months or so will have them howling at the moon. Actually they do seem pathetic even this far from the GE.
BBC and Sky, two news organisations ,and I use the term lightly, that will be as sick as the Labour Pary at the GE.Mr Crosby will no doubt have them in the cross hairs.. No little tit bits for six months or so will have them howling at the moon. Actually they do seem pathetic even this far from the GE.
Yeah, whatever. The point is that outside of the Internet bubble on which this site resides, it is questionable at best whether the public will see the last few days (and importantly the next few) as bad for Labour. I can imagine Sir Humphrey describing the idea of fighting Labour on the issue of the NHS as "courageous" if you know what I mean. And if Mike is correct and the lobbying issue of Crosby and tobacco doesn't go away the whole thing could backfire nastily.
BBC and Sky, two news organisations ,and I use the term lightly, that will be as sick as the Labour Pary at the GE.Mr Crosby will no doubt have them in the cross hairs.. No little tit bits for six months or so will have them howling at the moon. Actually they do seem pathetic even this far from the GE.
Yeah, whatever. The point is that outside of the Internet bubble on which this site resides, it is questionable at best whether the public will see the last few days (and importantly the next few) as bad for Labour. I can imagine Sir Humphrey describing the idea of fighting Labour on the issue of the NHS as "courageous" if you know what I mean. And if Mike is correct and the lobbying issue of Crosby and tobacco doesn't go away the whole thing could backfire nastily.
Hence why the Tories need to give the Mail, Telegraph etc stuff they want to print rather than waste their time trying to suck up to the BBC.
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
Me too - I lied and said no.
I wonder if they filter for PB readers!
It is interesting how this series of posts shows that online polling panels and their respondents are not representative of voters as a whole and hence must bring into question the accuracy of their results .
BBC and Sky, two news organisations ,and I use the term lightly, that will be as sick as the Labour Pary at the GE.Mr Crosby will no doubt have them in the cross hairs.. No little tit bits for six months or so will have them howling at the moon. Actually they do seem pathetic even this far from the GE.
Yeah, whatever. The point is that outside of the Internet bubble on which this site resides, it is questionable at best whether the public will see the last few days (and importantly the next few) as bad for Labour. I can imagine Sir Humphrey describing the idea of fighting Labour on the issue of the NHS as "courageous" if you know what I mean. And if Mike is correct and the lobbying issue of Crosby and tobacco doesn't go away the whole thing could backfire nastily.
This is the ideal time to be taking on Labour on the NHS after Stafford, Morecambe, the IT database fiasco, ward cleanliness, GPs contracts and a great deal more. Labour might think it is entitled to the country's gratitude for the NHS; few others do. And the prize to be won is great: if the Tories can knock Labour's reputation on the NHS sufficiently, what else do they have?
BBC and Sky, two news organisations ,and I use the term lightly, that will be as sick as the Labour Pary at the GE.Mr Crosby will no doubt have them in the cross hairs.. No little tit bits for six months or so will have them howling at the moon. Actually they do seem pathetic even this far from the GE.
Yeah, whatever. The point is that outside of the Internet bubble on which this site resides, it is questionable at best whether the public will see the last few days (and importantly the next few) as bad for Labour. I can imagine Sir Humphrey describing the idea of fighting Labour on the issue of the NHS as "courageous" if you know what I mean. And if Mike is correct and the lobbying issue of Crosby and tobacco doesn't go away the whole thing could backfire nastily.
This is the ideal time to be taking on Labour on the NHS after Stafford, Morecambe, the IT database fiasco, ward cleanliness, GPs contracts and a great deal more. Labour might think it is entitled to the country's gratitude for the NHS; few others do. And the prize to be won is great: if the Tories can knock Labour's reputation on the NHS sufficiently, what else do they have?
2 problems with that. 1. you are in government and have been for 3 years. Long enough to take responsibility with a lot of people. 2. A lot of Tories are on record as wanting to get rid of the NHS and as a result you are mistrusted to alter it. Couple that with the underfunding under Thatcher and Major and it remains a toxic subject for the Conservatives. Still, it's "courageous" I grant you.
We are less than two years away from the next GE, and the Conservatives are positioning themselves on the right side of important issues such as the economy, welfare etc. And on these issues, Labour has still got nothing to offer as a viable or credible alternative. Today we finally have a definitive message from Labour on an attack line aimed at their opponents, and its 'Get Crosby' over booze and fags because we loathe and fear him as a campaign guru. That's it, that is what has fired the Labour party up this week after the Keogh Report report card showed a less than stellar performance from the last Labour Government on the NHS. As with the campaign against Lord Ashcroft before the last GE, it showed just how tired and without ideas the last Labour Government were in the end. Too scared to even tell the public how they would cut the deficit.
This just shows how big a hole the Labour party dug themselves over the last 3 years. Their complacency in thinking that all they had to do was oppose everything this Government was doing, and that the Government's own austerity measures imposed as a result of Labour's economic legacy would do the rest. How Ed Miliband thought Labour could get away with not having to sell their own policies until the run up to the GE is bizarre. As Lynton Crosby pointed out after the 2005 GE, you cannot fatten a pig on market day, and he was right. The Coalition Government gave the Labour party the default position of now being the only main Opposition. And with that, came a soft polling lead they haven't had to work hard enough for, and one they have not done enough work to shore up in the run up to the next GE.
The gun at the start line was fired by the Conservatives earlier this year on the vital issues which will define the next GE campaign, and Labour still haven't found a pair of running shoes to put on. This 'get Crosby and we get the Tories' strategy follows the, get Lord Ashcroft over being a non dom Tory donor, get Cameron over being a toff, get Cameron over Leveson etc. And its all chaff, look at the Blair's scandals over the years. Its the economy that will decide the next GE, and as we know, Ed Miliband doesn't want to talk about that issue.
I thought that was rather good - that the Lobby are trying to turn it into something is dull and predictable. Jim Pickard got shirty with me when I said many of us really didn't care who CCHQ employed!
What the tories have done that is clever is to commit themselves to the idea of a state funded health service and at the same time put themselves on the side of the patient.
Finally, after decades of thrashing around, apologising and flirting with privatisation, the cons have a coherent, sellable policy on what is and will always be a very important issue.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
He can criticise it, and labour's record on it, because he is committed to it.
What the tories have done that is clever is to commit themselves to the idea of a state funded health service and at the same time put themselves on the side of the patient.
Finally, after decades of thrashing around, apologising and flirting with privatisation, the cons have a coherent, sellable policy on what is and will always be a very important issue.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
He can criticise it, and labour's record on it, because he is committed to it.
Bullshit. He said he was committed to it. The reality is proving somewhat different.
What the tories have done that is clever is to commit themselves to the idea of a state funded health service and at the same time put themselves on the side of the patient.
Finally, after decades of thrashing around, apologising and flirting with privatisation, the cons have a coherent, sellable policy on what is and will always be a very important issue.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
He can criticise it, and labour's record on it, because he is committed to it.
And its incredibly hard to be on the wrong end of the argument when your position is to back the patient's experience. It's the fundamental 'customer is always right' truism. It's a hard path to walk but it pays huge dividends in the long run.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
Was that before or after the Lansley debacle? It doesn't come much more 'clever' than that after all. Unless you want to look at Jeremy Hunt's approval ratings as he replaces the Lansley shaped hole.
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
Me too - I lied and said no.
I wonder if they filter for PB readers!
It is interesting how this series of posts shows that online polling panels and their respondents are not representative of voters as a whole and hence must bring into question the accuracy of their results .
O/T Just been VI'd by You Gov. Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc. And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
Me too - I lied and said no.
I wonder if they filter for PB readers!
It is interesting how this series of posts shows that online polling panels and their respondents are not representative of voters as a whole and hence must bring into question the accuracy of their results .
I am not being particularly disapproving as I do similar myself on the rare occasions I am called upon . I do not pretend to be any more representative of voters as a whole .
What the tories have done that is clever is to commit themselves to the idea of a state funded health service and at the same time put themselves on the side of the patient.
Finally, after decades of thrashing around, apologising and flirting with privatisation, the cons have a coherent, sellable policy on what is and will always be a very important issue.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
He can criticise it, and labour's record on it, because he is committed to it.
Bullshit. He said he was committed to it. The reality is proving somewhat different.
Remind me, what was Darling's plan for funding the NHS if re-elected?
What have the Tories done with regards to spending since coming to power as part of a coalition?
It remains yet to be seen what the coalitions response to the Keogh report actually will consist of. Special measures and replacement of the boards of these Trusts could either be a serious attempt to put things right, or it could be the iron grip of whitehall central control.
Like the Egyptian coup it could only succeed if it was followed by a rapid return to democracy. In these Trusts that should be the local CCGs taking charge. The coalition should have the courage of their convictions and return power over these Trusts to local control. These are the people who have real motivation to fix the problem. It is not the mandarins of Whitehall who will suffer in these hospitals but rather the citizens of places like Basildon, Boston and Nuneaton.
What the tories have done that is clever is to commit themselves to the idea of a state funded health service and at the same time put themselves on the side of the patient.
Finally, after decades of thrashing around, apologising and flirting with privatisation, the cons have a coherent, sellable policy on what is and will always be a very important issue.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
He can criticise it, and labour's record on it, because he is committed to it.
And its incredibly hard to be on the wrong end of the argument when your position is to back the patient's experience. It's the fundamental 'customer is always right' truism. It's a hard path to walk but it pays huge dividends in the long run.
Remind me, what was Darling's plan for funding the NHS if re-elected?
An extremely lucrative one of course.
Alistair Darling paid thousands by NHS Privatisation Company
Labour MP Alistair Darling was paid thousands of pounds by a company heavily involved in the privatisation of the English NHS, it has emerged.
In 2011, the Edinburgh MP who heads the anti-independence campaign Better Together, received over £10,000 for addressing a dinner organised by Cinven Limited.
The company is a leading buyout firm, who in 2008 bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa for £1.44bn. Other UK investments include Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would "spiral" as a result of Conservative MP Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals.
Mr Darling, who this week will give a speech on behalf of Better Together, is one of a string of current and former Labour MPs who have links to or have benefitted financially from companies involved in private health care.
Others who have benefitted include Mr Darling’s former Labour cabinet colleagues Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt who were both former Health Secretaries. Hewitt was a former advisor to Cinven and landed a lucrative £55,000 role with the firm after standing down as an MP.
When in office, Milburn received tens of thousands of pounds from several firms involved in private health care.
If Cameron could say "I have never spoken to Lynton Crosby about cigarette legislation", he would. He cannot, presumably, because he did.
Or just maybe, it's because he has spoken to him and it's such a wide catchall to be meaningless.
Dave: never, ever, ever, bring up cigarette legislation in my hearing.
Lynton: okay I won't.
So in the above case they have spoken about it, but as in the reply by Dave, he has not been lobbied by Crosby, a much stronger refutation to the inference that Ed, is trying to hang on him.
The big story today in terms of policy that will have an effect on people is the Education proposal. Why do I think the government wants children put into bands? Partly it's for assessment purposes but the main reason is increased parental choice.
At the moment, parental preferences can be expressed but in reality for the popular schools, unless there's a backdoor way in - church membership for CoE schools, siblings already there - most oversubscribed schools discriminate on grounds of geography: who lives closest. It's socially divisive and condemns many children to duff schools simply because they're outside the effective catchment area for the good, and hence popular ones. This also tends to discriminate against lower-income families both because more poor schools are located in low-income areas, and because those families have fewer options to escape that fate.
Banding children opens up another mechanism for selection, not based on ability - or more accurately, based on ensuring the intake contains an even spread of ability. Some schools already do this but only because they run their own tests. If the opportunity were extended far more widely, it would open the opportunity for far more to do likewise, which would both tend to equalise intakes (and so parents and communities could more fairly judge quality), and increase competition as the postcode would matter less.
The unions have inevitably come out against the proposals (when was the last time the education unions supported a proposed government reform?), though I suspect they'd be even more vehemently opposed if they realised that their members might be held more accountable for the service they deliver. Parents, on the other hand, might take a different view.
If Cameron could say "I have never spoken to Lynton Crosby about cigarette legislation", he would. He cannot, presumably, because he did.
You mean the actual definition of "lobbying" might be a very loose one that could easily be stretched and interpreted at will and for the maximum possible convenience?
I must say that doesn't sound very sporting Mr Smithson. There really should be some sort of anti-lobbying bill to sort this all out.
It is because they are two cheeks on the same arse that to me Labour has no advantage on the NHS.
Incidentally Cinvin paid far too much for its heavily geared purchase of the BUPA, and is desperate to land NHS contracts at good prices. I expect that they are maintaining their links with parliament. Far more significant in yhe long term than any possible link between Crosby and tobacco legislation
Remind me, what was Darling's plan for funding the NHS if re-elected?
An extremely lucrative one of course.
Alistair Darling paid thousands by NHS Privatisation Company
Labour MP Alistair Darling was paid thousands of pounds by a company heavily involved in the privatisation of the English NHS, it has emerged.
In 2011, the Edinburgh MP who heads the anti-independence campaign Better Together, received over £10,000 for addressing a dinner organised by Cinven Limited.
The company is a leading buyout firm, who in 2008 bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa for £1.44bn. Other UK investments include Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would "spiral" as a result of Conservative MP Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals.
Mr Darling, who this week will give a speech on behalf of Better Together, is one of a string of current and former Labour MPs who have links to or have benefitted financially from companies involved in private health care.
Others who have benefitted include Mr Darling’s former Labour cabinet colleagues Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt who were both former Health Secretaries. Hewitt was a former advisor to Cinven and landed a lucrative £55,000 role with the firm after standing down as an MP.
When in office, Milburn received tens of thousands of pounds from several firms involved in private health care.
BBC and Sky, two news organisations ,and I use the term lightly, that will be as sick as the Labour Pary at the GE.Mr Crosby will no doubt have them in the cross hairs.. No little tit bits for six months or so will have them howling at the moon. Actually they do seem pathetic even this far from the GE.
Yeah, whatever. The point is that outside of the Internet bubble on which this site resides, it is questionable at best whether the public will see the last few days (and importantly the next few) as bad for Labour. I can imagine Sir Humphrey describing the idea of fighting Labour on the issue of the NHS as "courageous" if you know what I mean. And if Mike is correct and the lobbying issue of Crosby and tobacco doesn't go away the whole thing could backfire nastily.
This is the ideal time to be taking on Labour on the NHS after Stafford, Morecambe, the IT database fiasco, ward cleanliness, GPs contracts and a great deal more. Labour might think it is entitled to the country's gratitude for the NHS; few others do. And the prize to be won is great: if the Tories can knock Labour's reputation on the NHS sufficiently, what else do they have?
2 problems with that. 1. you are in government and have been for 3 years. Long enough to take responsibility with a lot of people. 2. A lot of Tories are on record as wanting to get rid of the NHS and as a result you are mistrusted to alter it. Couple that with the underfunding under Thatcher and Major and it remains a toxic subject for the Conservatives. Still, it's "courageous" I grant you.
If it's already toxic, then the Conservatives have nothing to lose by hitting Labour with their many failings on the NHS and the thousands of unnecessary deaths that occurred on their watch - failings which are only now being revealed.
Still, if you think shouting "Fatcha" will win the argument, be my guest.
By the way, I'd challenge you to find a single senior Conservative on record as saying that he or she wants to get rid of the NHS (i.e. a state-funded healthcare system free at the point of delivery). Let's define 'senior' as any current minister, or former cabinet or shadow cabinet member.
Yes, I do. This argument is pathetic. You want to disqualify ever more people from having any political input, based on previous employment history, reducing a shallow pool to the dregs of SPADS anoraks, geeks and chancers.
If you think the PM is too weak to say to Lynton, Piss off, mate, you were in league with those guys, then you have the wrong PM.
I expect that they are maintaining their links with parliament
You expect rightly because anyone naive enough to think it's just labour who are at it are in for a mighty shock. Lib dems as well as tories just in case anyone thinks otherwise.
Far more significant in yhe long term than any possible link between Crosby and tobacco legislation
Actually it's the practice of lobbying and all the murky links themselves which are much more significant than any one case. Whether it be with tobacco or private healthcare.
So when Cammie beings forward proposals on lobbying it matters just a touch on whether he can be trusted to act decisively on the issue or if it's all mere posturing. Which is where his links to Crosby come in as that hardly looks good or very persuasive.
By the way, I'd challenge you to find a single senior Conservative on record as saying that he or she wants to get rid of the NHS (i.e. a state-funded healthcare system free at the point of delivery). Let's define 'senior' as any current minister, or former cabinet or shadow cabinet member.
No, of course they haven't, they wouldn't be so stupid as well you know. It doesn't stop Tory journalists and second-rank politicians like Daniel Hannan saying it though, which gives the impression that others would like to say it if they thought they could get away with it. And it's that cumulative effect which is the problem.
That, and the fact that metrics like waiting lists always go up under Conservative governments.
It remains yet to be seen what the coalitions response to the Keogh report actually will consist of. Special measures and replacement of the boards of these Trusts could either be a serious attempt to put things right, or it could be the iron grip of whitehall central control.
The coalition's response should be the same as it should be for any such report. 1) The report should come out with a series of clear recommendations. 2) The government should have a little time (up to two months) to consider the recommendations, and come up with a response to each. The basic top-line response for each would be things like 'will do', 'already done', 'discussion with authors needed' and 'Not to be done'. All responses should be backed up with firm details of why the decision was made, and if it needs doing, how it will be done. 3) A time limit is given to implement them. All recommendations - and progress towards them - is available on-line, and progress frequently tracked and updated on-line.
This would avoid reports being kicked into the long grass, and give the public visibility on progress.
These reports are too important to be bathed in warm words before being allowed to gather cobwebs in a cupboard. If politicians trust these people to make reports, they should trust the recommendations that they produce and act on them. And if they've spent public money on the reports, the public should have visibility on implementation.
I never wake up in the morning and think "Man, I really love the NHS!". Then again, I never wake up in the morning and think " Feckin' NHS, wants getting rid of!" I do sometimes wake up and think "Flippin' 'eck, I feel a bit ropey, I'll phone the quack"
That's about as much thought as I give the NHS, and I bet that's about as much as most people give it. We pay our taxes, and the government of the day provide us with health care, some of it outstanding, some average, some mediocre, some downright appalling. I could give you tens of anecdotes , some my own, some from family and friends, covering the whole spectrum of emotions but we've all got them so I won't bore you.
I'm irritated by both Conservative and Labour trying to claim ownership as their own. They don't own it, all they have to do is fund it, manage it and make it fit for purpose, something that neither of them, clearly, seem capable of. I don't want politicians to love or hate the NHS, I want them to make it work.
Comments
As for PMQ's if you only sure what the BBC has shown then you would think it was a win for Ed Miliband. When I accept that if you watched the whole thing it was not.
A contender for the brass-neck of the year award has crawled out from the stone he was living under:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23347425
A senior Taliban leader has said he was 'shocked' by the attack on schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai last year, in which she nearly died. Remember, her 'crime' was wanting to go to school.
However, he has refused to apologise or condemn the attack. Indeed, he says he wished he had been able to 'advise' her before the attack.
There is a word that is used too often on here, and I will use it for him: scum.
Ed's "substantially positive" MORI ratings. What happened to them?!
Before Crosby arrived the Tories were touching 40% with YouGov. At the election they were down to 33%
I could go into the details for and against but that would take a very long essay and I need a break from essays
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk
Communications and strategy figures are only as good as their last campaign. Crosby helped Boris by going after Ken (Boris still had most to do with his win lest we forget his approval ratings compared to Clegg, little Ed or even Cammie) but his record with Michael Howard on an actual general election is far less impressive.
Alastair Campbell had a target on his back from day one but as he himself knew when you become the story for too long, out you go, and out he did go eventually. He wasn't the first and he won't be the last.
Claiming its staff are heroes and saints and angels is bizarre - they're paid to be there and do a good job [make me better and send me home if they can]. They are generally paid more than the average bod doing another and chose to do it.
Organisationally, it's not perfect but then nowhere is. And no organisation should be protected like a sacred cow from criticism by anyone.
*tears of laughter etc.*
From watching the debate in the HoC, he looked as if he was heading for a breakdown of some sort while unsuccessfully trying to prevent himself from drowning.
There are times when a man has to lay down his political life for the greater good and for Andy Burnham that time is fast approaching.
And who knows how Howard would have done in 2005 if anyone else had been in charge. It was 8yrs ago and a lot has changed. When did Crosby arrive vs polling day?
What they don't or won't comprehend is that the only way Labour can be impeded is if the 2010 LDs who have switched move away. Crosby's presence will help ensure that they stay.
It's that simple.
LabourList - Labour’s “Get Crosby” Lobbying Bill amendments
"The Labour Party have announced their amendments to the government’s Lobbying Bill this evening. And they seem designed with one goal in mind – Get Crosby."
Alan Johnson's response has been by far the most sensible from labour for me. He at least acknowledged that mistakes were made on labour's watch, possibly with the best of intentions.
Far better than the 'Oi that toy is mine, you're not playing with it' attitude we've seen from others.
Why are labour desperate to get rid of Crosby then? Why the vendetta? Why the demands for sacking?
1. SPD
2. CDU/CSU
3. The Greens
4. The FDP
5. Der Linke
6. AfD
Things are also complicated in Germany by three factors:
1. If you are a Eurosceptic, and see your party is polling 2-3% in the polls, you might well tactically vote FDP, which has made some pretty Eurosceptic noises in the past. If you reckon the AfD is unlikely to reach 5%, because that's what the polls say, then that is a logical position to take.
2. The German economy has been through a long boom. Unemployment is at a 20 year low. While there are a lot of mildly Eurosceptic Germans, with a booming economy, many of them are unlikely to care enough about the EU to make it the sole way they want to cast their vote. (AfD, like UKIP of old, is a bit too much of a single issue party at the moment.)
3. There is no Farage in Germany. The politicians who make up the AfD are mostly frustrated and failed politicians from other parties who bring their own baggage. Now, it is quite possible that an articulate, credible Eurosceptic leadership will emerge, but I would suggest it is more likely to come from within the FDP than from the AfD.
Little Ed will take a hit for it in the short term though the Lansley debacle and him being booted overboard means it is hardly unprecedented.
After the dust has settled this is all going to be about who is willing to implement Francis and Keogh and come up with the most effective proposals for fixing the problem. Clegg will also have to come out one way or another as his bizarre silence over all this simply isn't sustainable.
The NHS is going to be up there as a big voter concern as usual come the general election. It won't be the primary focus like the economy with it's reliance on any 'feel good factor', yet it's an issue that can sway more than enough voters who could be on the fence.
Supplementary questions on Press regulation and how much you trust Leveson, Murdoch and Hacked off etc.
And one on if you have heard of Lynton Crosby
For the Tories winning on the NHS just means dragging Labour down to the same level which should be easy enough because of all the problems. All it takes is hiding their fangs (very difficult) and focusing on the right things long enough i.e. the target culture and the way the nomenklatura are a student union gravy train (very easy).
They already did it once - most trusted on NHS - in 2010 and then threw it away.
I'm not talking about Labour and the trade unions. I'm talking about the Tories and the trade unions. I'm suggesting that relentlessly attacking organisations that represent millions of people (such as in the lobbying bill) is not great politics.
Plus it gives them the opportunity to delay talking about the Economy, while rEd waits for words to form on his blank piece of paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqjXalcSpVs
Did talking about Ashcroft have any impact on the Tory vote? Or the Saatchis? I can't think of any. The lobby will bore us to tears with accusations and the Guardian will run stories about him for days on end - and it will have zip impact on the Man in the Street.
When Ed Milband says big tobacco, he means big fat cigars, right?
Cammie requires his backbenchers to STFU about Europe and the kippers from now until 2015 or he's just going to see a repeat of the shambles of them running about like headless chickens boosting the kipper vote. Now that they have seemingly finally calmed down he gets a neck and neck with labour in a ICM poll and it's hardly rocket science to know having the tory party finally look united is an electoral necessity.
Crosby should be working on little Ed while Cammie should be getting back to detox for those lib dem and centrist voters.
Blowing up the NHS into this kind of "punch and judy politics" might well make labour suffer for a while but labour isn't in power while Hunt's approval ratings are a joke so it's merely going to hurt the tories even more as it does so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Poulter
"(a) that David Cameron and Lynton Crosby had a discussion about plain packaging for cigarettes along the lines of, “We can’t discuss plain packaging for cigarettes because of your client list”; and
(b) that having Labour bang on about Crosby, who most normal people, if pressed, would say was a folk rock musician, suits the Prime Minister down to the ground?"
Closest i can find now is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/13/interview-andrew-lansley-conservative-health-spokesman
His website says "he has been responsible for the Conservatives becoming the most trusted party with the NHS".
and
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/policy/labour-leads-tories-over-nhs/5007246.article
"Voters still prefer Labour to the Conservatives where the NHS and public health are concerned, according to research by pollsters ICM. ...But this is the only major area where the government leads the Tories - by just 1 per cent"
around the same time.
It didn't last long as a i recall but it shows it's easily possible (because of all the problems) if they can manage to hide their fangs long enough (which is the bit that's hard).
Why are you taking the 2010 Lab voters (let alone the LD switchers) as a constant?
We are now heading towards Lab and many New Lab voters will feel more comfortable with the Cons than Old Lab.
That and the Cons, once again, have saved the
worldeconomy from Labour.I think the "it all depends how many LDs return to/stay with Lab" meme is no longer 100% relevant.
Tories: Why did Labour suppress reports of high mortality in the NHS?
Labour: Lynton Crosby
That's the election won then...
Why the Lobby go down these rabbit holes is beyond me. And they have the cheek to take the pee out of the LDs obsessing over electoral reform...
you can see it on the graph here
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4858
and on the first table here
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/m8wn1o4zeg/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Issues1-140212.pdf
sept 2010
remembered it as never expected to see it.
LOL
Such predictable hypocrisy from the PB tories.
BBC have "Miliband Calls for Crosby Inquiry"
Not quite as terrible for Labour as you'd believe if you got all your political news from here is it?
http://www.i24news.tv/en/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100226972/plain-packaging-is-a-bad-idea-because-its-a-bad-idea-not-just-because-lynton-crosby-says-so/
Chris Snowden is well worth reading at the ASI - his stats unpick most nannying arguments pretty quickly.
I can imagine Sir Humphrey describing the idea of fighting Labour on the issue of the NHS as "courageous" if you know what I mean. And if Mike is correct and the lobbying issue of Crosby and tobacco doesn't go away the whole thing could backfire nastily.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100226912/by-howling-down-all-criticism-those-who-think-theyre-defending-the-nhs-are-making-it-mediocre/
"every other Western European country developed a mixed system of public and private provision, Britain clung to a state monolith."
Makes in a better way the point I tried raising yesterday. The Health Services problems originates from their socialist structure.
2 problems with that.
1. you are in government and have been for 3 years. Long enough to take responsibility with a lot of people.
2. A lot of Tories are on record as wanting to get rid of the NHS and as a result you are mistrusted to alter it. Couple that with the underfunding under Thatcher and Major and it remains a toxic subject for the Conservatives.
Still, it's "courageous" I grant you.
This just shows how big a hole the Labour party dug themselves over the last 3 years. Their complacency in thinking that all they had to do was oppose everything this Government was doing, and that the Government's own austerity measures imposed as a result of Labour's economic legacy would do the rest. How Ed Miliband thought Labour could get away with not having to sell their own policies until the run up to the GE is bizarre. As Lynton Crosby pointed out after the 2005 GE, you cannot fatten a pig on market day, and he was right. The Coalition Government gave the Labour party the default position of now being the only main Opposition. And with that, came a soft polling lead they haven't had to work hard enough for, and one they have not done enough work to shore up in the run up to the next GE.
The gun at the start line was fired by the Conservatives earlier this year on the vital issues which will define the next GE campaign, and Labour still haven't found a pair of running shoes to put on. This 'get Crosby and we get the Tories' strategy follows the, get Lord Ashcroft over being a non dom Tory donor, get Cameron over being a toff, get Cameron over Leveson etc. And its all chaff, look at the Blair's scandals over the years. Its the economy that will decide the next GE, and as we know, Ed Miliband doesn't want to talk about that issue.
Finally, after decades of thrashing around, apologising and flirting with privatisation, the cons have a coherent, sellable policy on what is and will always be a very important issue.
Many tories went into orbit when Cameron loved bombed the NHS but its proving to be a clever move
He can criticise it, and labour's record on it, because he is committed to it.
I shall wear my 'disapproved of by Mark Senior' badge with honour.
' you are in government and have been for 3 years. Long enough to take responsibility with a lot of people.'
Agree,long enough to expose some of the New Labour cover ups.
What have the Tories done with regards to spending since coming to power as part of a coalition?
Like the Egyptian coup it could only succeed if it was followed by a rapid return to democracy. In these Trusts that should be the local CCGs taking charge. The coalition should have the courage of their convictions and return power over these Trusts to local control. These are the people who have real motivation to fix the problem. It is not the mandarins of Whitehall who will suffer in these hospitals but rather the citizens of places like Basildon, Boston and Nuneaton.
If Cameron could say "I have never spoken to Lynton Crosby about cigarette legislation", he would. He cannot, presumably, because he did.
Dave: never, ever, ever, bring up cigarette legislation in my hearing.
Lynton: okay I won't.
So in the above case they have spoken about it, but as in the reply by Dave, he has not been lobbied by Crosby, a much stronger refutation to the inference that Ed, is trying to hang on him.
At the moment, parental preferences can be expressed but in reality for the popular schools, unless there's a backdoor way in - church membership for CoE schools, siblings already there - most oversubscribed schools discriminate on grounds of geography: who lives closest. It's socially divisive and condemns many children to duff schools simply because they're outside the effective catchment area for the good, and hence popular ones. This also tends to discriminate against lower-income families both because more poor schools are located in low-income areas, and because those families have fewer options to escape that fate.
Banding children opens up another mechanism for selection, not based on ability - or more accurately, based on ensuring the intake contains an even spread of ability. Some schools already do this but only because they run their own tests. If the opportunity were extended far more widely, it would open the opportunity for far more to do likewise, which would both tend to equalise intakes (and so parents and communities could more fairly judge quality), and increase competition as the postcode would matter less.
The unions have inevitably come out against the proposals (when was the last time the education unions supported a proposed government reform?), though I suspect they'd be even more vehemently opposed if they realised that their members might be held more accountable for the service they deliver. Parents, on the other hand, might take a different view.
Labour MPs were left glum-faced as Cameron delivered his strongest performance for months.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/pmqs-review-cameron-sends-tories-away-happy-he-triumphs-over-miliband
I must say that doesn't sound very sporting Mr Smithson.
There really should be some sort of anti-lobbying bill to sort this all out.
'If Cameron could say "I have never spoken to Lynton Crosby about cigarette legislation", he would. He cannot, presumably, because he did.'
Does anyone apart from the Guardian & the Labour party care?
Incidentally Cinvin paid far too much for its heavily geared purchase of the BUPA, and is desperate to land NHS contracts at good prices. I expect that they are maintaining their links with parliament. Far more significant in yhe long term than any possible link between Crosby and tobacco legislation
Not as bad as when an EU map wiped out iirc Wales.
Google Maps wipes out Scottish island
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23331456
Still, if you think shouting "Fatcha" will win the argument, be my guest.
By the way, I'd challenge you to find a single senior Conservative on record as saying that he or she wants to get rid of the NHS (i.e. a state-funded healthcare system free at the point of delivery). Let's define 'senior' as any current minister, or former cabinet or shadow cabinet member.
If you think the PM is too weak to say to Lynton, Piss off, mate, you were in league with those guys, then you have the wrong PM.
Actually it's the practice of lobbying and all the murky links themselves which are much more significant than any one case. Whether it be with tobacco or private healthcare.
So when Cammie beings forward proposals on lobbying it matters just a touch on whether he can be trusted to act decisively on the issue or if it's all mere posturing. Which is where his links to Crosby come in as that hardly looks good or very persuasive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqjXalcSpVs&feature=youtu.be
I suspect this will be an increasing theme over the next 22 months. Where's your need for a Plan B now etc.
That, and the fact that metrics like waiting lists always go up under Conservative governments.
1) The report should come out with a series of clear recommendations.
2) The government should have a little time (up to two months) to consider the recommendations, and come up with a response to each. The basic top-line response for each would be things like 'will do', 'already done', 'discussion with authors needed' and 'Not to be done'. All responses should be backed up with firm details of why the decision was made, and if it needs doing, how it will be done.
3) A time limit is given to implement them. All recommendations - and progress towards them - is available on-line, and progress frequently tracked and updated on-line.
This would avoid reports being kicked into the long grass, and give the public visibility on progress.
These reports are too important to be bathed in warm words before being allowed to gather cobwebs in a cupboard. If politicians trust these people to make reports, they should trust the recommendations that they produce and act on them. And if they've spent public money on the reports, the public should have visibility on implementation.
Still, at least it's not as if you're openly shilling for CCHQ, is it?
I do sometimes wake up and think "Flippin' 'eck, I feel a bit ropey, I'll phone the quack"
That's about as much thought as I give the NHS, and I bet that's about as much as most people give it. We pay our taxes, and the government of the day provide us with health care, some of it outstanding, some average, some mediocre, some downright appalling.
I could give you tens of anecdotes , some my own, some from family and friends, covering the whole spectrum of emotions but we've all got them so I won't bore you.
I'm irritated by both Conservative and Labour trying to claim ownership as their own. They don't own it, all they have to do is fund it, manage it and make it fit for purpose, something that neither of them, clearly, seem capable of. I don't want politicians to love or hate the NHS, I want them to make it work.