Posted by JLW on Tuesday May 24, 14:20
Despite repeated claims that Christie Hospital was going to close by John Leech, this has now been categorically denied by Neil Goodwin, the chief executive of the authority in an article for the Manchester Evening News.
He said: "We are committed to improving cancer services across Greater Manchester and that includes strengthening the role of the Christie as the region's specialist centre.
"There have been despicable rumours that the Christie would close. This is complete and utter nonsense and wholly irresponsible. The hospital has been, and always will always be, central to our plans for the future of cancer services."
Apparently, medics feared that a three-month review of cancer services would recommend that surgery, leukaemia, critical care and administration should be transferred to the new Manchester Royal Infirmary "super hospital". Today Health Chiefs pledged £7m for critical care facilities to look after cancer patients who become seriously ill after chemotherapy or surgery.
+ tags coming soon
( 29 Comments )
Peter Cummings
Tuesday May 24, 19:44
At last the odious truth of the John Leech campaign is beginning to emerge. He used perfidious tactics to win his seat and I hope that the full truth behind his treacherous campaign emerges, just as the troglodyte emerges from his cave (metaphorically speaking).
Ian
Tuesday May 24, 20:34
EXPOSED: Leech the Liar.
The facts speak for themselves - the Lib Dem Christie Campaign was completely bogus.
It was a deliberate attempt to play on the fears of cancer patients, their relatives and anyone else with an association with The Christie.
Makes you wonder just how low can Leech go?
The people of Manchester Withington have, in part, elected Leech on a lie.
His integrity is in tatters.
Let's not let this rest here.
Click on the 'support us' link and together, let's hold him to account.
Alan
Tuesday May 24, 23:24
For the past two months the constituents have been bombarded with posters and leaflets bearing the Leech campaign catch phrase 'Save Christie Hospital'. I wonder what exactly it was that John was trying to save Christie Hospital from. Was it the £7m pledge (MEN 24/05/2005, p13) which will strengthen the hospital's role as Europe's biggest specialist cancer centre; or is he trying to save it from the newly proposed eight bed unit equipped with life saving equipment?
Come on John, we all saw the posters, we all read the leaflets; isn't it time that you stood up and explained to the people of Manchester Withington exactly why Christie needed to be saved!
Rachel
Tuesday May 24, 23:42
This is one of the most callous politically motivated lies I have ever come across. Shirley Williams would be mortified!!
Betty Hardman
Wednesday May 25, 00:04
I live in Cheadle and I voted LibDem for Patsy. She has been so brave withstanding first a hate mail campaign and then fighting cancer- and being treated at Christie's. I think all decent LibDems would find John Leech's actions sickening. Please don't tar all of us with his brush.
Sarah Jackson
Wednesday May 25, 18:12
I would be very interested to know what Keith Whitmore thinks about the whole Chrsitie issue, seeing as he was so quick to jump to John Leechs defence. I will be of course approaching Leech himself at his Advice Surgery but I am interested to know what his fellow Council buddies think of this whole sham.
Nigel Sanders
Wednesday May 25, 21:10
I shall be on the front row of John Leech's surgery, I shall ask him some tough questions, and I hope I shall receive some answers. His election propaganda was 'pure evil' to quote my sick Mother who has received excellent health care from Christies Hospital. As I am a devout (Theravada)Buddhist, I firmly believe in Kharma and the natural equilibrium of lies/truth. Man will not profit from lies, he will eventually suffer: at his own making. If John Leech has been untruthful, then I believe he will suffer in future, as a result of his lies.
Alan
Wednesday May 25, 22:55
I would urge all people who believe the campaigning methods used by John Leech, regarding Christie Hospital, to write to their local papers and to John Leech himself. Leech needs to explain himself; it's just not good enough that these 'dirty' tactics can be used without any kind of repercussions. It is common knowledge that the voice of many is better than the voice of the few.
Hermione Holt
Thursday May 26, 01:16
Since my family has contributed so generously to the Christie Hospital over the last years, I am personally insulted by the John Leech campaign. I am seeking legal advice and I will seek full justice. Mister John Leech, I will not be silenced!
Tim
Thursday May 26, 05:21
Can someone point me to any leaflet from John Leech MP that said Christies would definately close?
I didn't receive a single one. I did get leaflets from Mr Leech supporting the 60 Christie doctors worried about the future of the hospital.
Can anyone help?
Alan
Thursday May 26, 12:01
He didn't say that Christie was 'definately going to close' Tim; he said that it was 'under threat of closure'. That is most peoples problem, it wasn't under threat of closure. He played on the fears of people, and cancer patients, within the constituency. If you didn't receive any of these leaflets Tim then I would be more than happy to send you copies of the masses that I received!
Tim
Thursday May 26, 17:29
Alan, thank you for the response.
I did receive leaflets saying Christies was 'under threat of closure'. So was John Leech lying? If so then the 60 doctors from Christie were also lying because that is what they said.
Sarah Jackson
Thursday May 26, 18:17
Tim, at no point in any of John Leeches leaflets did he name any of his sources for Christie being under threat - apparantly '60 doctors' told him this, who are these doctors? or was it just made up- personally i think it was. Neil Goodwin, Director of the SHA has since said these claims were 'complete and utter nonsense and wholly irresponsible'.Theres a reliable source. So on this basis, i could say that a local school will close down, on the basis that 100 teachers has told me. He lied, but the sad thing is, is that people fell for it
Alan
Thursday May 26, 18:28
In answer to your question Tim... Sarah took the words straight out of my mouth!
Tim
Thursday May 26, 21:32
Sarah,
So you don't believe him, or the Manchester Evening News that 60 doctors have said that the Christie is under threat.
Fair enough. That doesn't make him a liar.
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/157/157574_christie_blueprint_defies_nhs_chiefs.html
or to pull out a little:
"Last month the M.E.N. revealed how 60 doctors at Christie had signed a petition in protest at the review, which they say could threaten the future of Europe's largest cancer hospital.
Medics fear health bosses have already made a decision behind closed doors to move cancer surgery, leukaemia, critical care and administration to nearby Manchester Royal Infirmary, which could spell the end for Christie."
Sarah J
Thursday May 26, 21:56
Tim, without wanting to go back and forth arguing about this- John Leech had no proof of any proposed closure. Enough said
Tim
Thursday May 26, 22:59
Sarah, He didn't claim he had proof of a proposed closure. He said that the Christie was under threat - due to the review. The same as the doctors said. Or get me a quote that says different.
Everyone, Labour are now spinning the Christie issue in a disingenuous way to try and soothe their ire at losing the seat. If they hadn't taken Withington for granted then their 11 thousand majority would not have been overturned in just four years.
Alan
Thursday May 26, 23:19
Tim, you seem quite reasonable and willing to discuss the issue sensibly. Clearly we are on opposing sides but to me politics is all about debating and changing things for the better. I am a Labour supporter, I don't deny it and yes I was very saddened to see Keith Bradley go because to me he was a great representative for the constituency and, party politics aside, he was a very caring and honourable person. My main issue is not that someone else won it was by the way that they did. If John Leech had run an honest, issue based, positive campaign then I would be unhappy that he won, of course,but I would be no where near as angry about the dishonesty as I am now and will be over the next 4 years. The posters and leaflets entitled 'Save Christie Hospital' denoted to the voter that it was under threat of closure; you know it and I know it. This is not an issue based campaign, it is jumping on the band wagon, along with 60 or so doctors, in an attempt to gain votes. If there really was a closure threat do you not think that both Keith Bradley and Karen Bradley would have picked up on it also and campaigned for the same thing?
Tim
Thursday May 26, 23:39
Thank you Alan. I am (suprise suprise) a Lib Dem. Perhaps this issue boils down to who you believe, as much as what they say.
I was upset that out previous MP didn't speak out help Christies. It seems clear now that the reason he didn't is because he thought there was absolutely no threat to services. Which as a Labour supporter you would believe more readily than I would.
Whereas I am more likely to believe John Leech as a Lib Dem supporter, and someone who doesn't feel like Keith Bradley was a good MP.
I suppose only time will tell.
Alice
Friday May 27, 04:18
A debate about the best way to deliver cancer services would have been one thing but Leech was prepared to frighten vulnerable people for the sake of votes which is pretty unforgivable. Even before the Christie thing he sent out that bizarre letter about ovarian cancer which totally threw me - am I the only person who thought that was weird and inappropriate??
Conrad
Friday May 27, 04:58
what do you expect when you elect the Bloodsucker?
NOW WHO'S THE HONEST ONE, BLOODSUCKER?
Sarah Jackson
Friday May 27, 15:16
Tim, i'm not a Labour supporter, and I can say that if in 5 years time if John leech has done a good job i'll hold my hands up and say fair enough. However, whatever way you want to look at it, he mis lead people into thinking that a really valuable service was going to close, it wasn't just like a local library or a church, these are people with cancer and not only they, but also the constituents didn';t deserve to be lied to. I've made my point now and don't think its right that his behaviour should be condoned by labour, lib dems or any other party.
Sue
Saturday May 28, 00:38
In answer to Alice - yes I thought the Ovarian Cancer letter was creepy too. Does he want to be a doctor or an MP? Cancer is a very emotive and serious issue, Mr Leech seems to not know the kind of things that should just not be party political. Maybe he will learn??
Alan
Saturday May 28, 01:23
He clearly hasn't Sue or else he wouldn't continue with his misleading campaign over Christie, even after being exposed!
Alan
Sunday May 29, 17:30
In response to John, no I don't believe that Leech got in on the Christie issue alone. There was as you mention the 'war' factor which I believe played a huge part in Labour losing Withington. Leech discredited former MP Keith Bradley by claiming that he was in favour of the war. Infact, he voted against it. The Lib Dem play on national and local fears in order to gain power, they have no coherent policies of their own. As for university fees, I finished university last year; I worked full time in addition to successfully completing a degree in History and Philosophy. I don't see why the taxpayer should pay for my education, it was my choice to go and therefore I should pay. The current system allows people to go to university, who ordinarily wouldn't be able to.
Incidentally, the numbers of people going to university have increased dramatically over the past 10 years. I wonder if all the advocates of scrapping tuition fees would still support the idea if the government put up our taxes so as to pay for the increasing numbers attending?
John Ellis
Monday May 30, 04:28
Glad we can move on from Christie, Alan, at least for the moment. So let's go to "the war".
Yes, Mr Bradley voted against it, though he was no Bob Marshall-Andrews or Alice Mahon. I had quite a protracted correspondence with him at the time, trying to persuade him to do exactly that. But he had voted with the government in the earlier votes, and was so uncertain as to what he would do that I only knew that he had finally voted against when the press published the names of those MPs who had passed through each voting lobby.
I make no criticism of him for his uncertainty - MP's aren't delegated, and must follow their conscience. But his defenders have portrayed him as a full blown opponent of the Iraq adventure, and he was not.
In any case the issue was not Mr Bradley's personal views. It was the government itself: it was the the style and arrogance of Blair, Straw and Hoon; it was sofa government, behind closed doors and without minutes; it was shifting evasions in public statements, and the sacrifice of Kelly, numbers of British troops, and literally uncounted thousands of Iraqis; it was the sense that Blair had made a commitment to Bush, well in advance of the actual war, about which he was frank neither with Parliament nor the nation.
And, with all due respect to you, Alan, I do get really pigsick when I come across the stale, old and intellectually barren allegation that the Lib Dems "have no coherent policies of their own", which reinforces my considerable suspicion that this web site is the creation of disgruntled anonymous Labour activists who are equally pigsick that, to their amazement, they lost on May 5th.
All parties have manifestos, the Lib Dems included. By all means, have a bash at them if you think they're inadequate, unrealistic - or just plain evil! - but let's get away from mere scattergun abuse.
And, in fairness to you, on the university tuition fees issue you put the government's case fairly, and link it to your own experience.
And fine, if that works for you - though I still find it hard to swallow that this was no part of the Labour Party's manifesto. All I would say is that, if present policies were in place, I would never have got to university. During my sixth form years, my father lost his job and my mother developed cancer - yes, and was treated and cared for excellently at Christie hospital! My family was on its uppers, financially. Rightly or wrongly, given that we were struggling to make ends meet on a day to day basis, I would never have risked running up debts in my own name.
But as it was, there were grants then, and I got there. Two students in my own family have recently given up on university in the middle of their courses. In both cases, the fear of spiralling debt was a major factor, especially when they took into account that at some point fairly soon they would want to get on to the property ladder, where they will face spiralling prices for quite modest accommodation - and yet more debt via a mortgage. We're now beginning to see the phenomenon of middle-aged people finding themselves supporting cash-strapped parents in retirement, and cash-strapped kids trying to build their future! There has to be a better way.
Alan
Monday May 30, 14:58
John, in relation to university fees and loans I can, to a degree, empathise with your thinking. What you have to bear in mind though is that the current system does allow people from poor backgrounds to go to university. Tuition fees are based on the ability to pay; if you can afford to pay it (related to family earnings per year) then you pay it, if you can't then you don't. Yes everyone still has a student loan that they have to pay back but lets look at that for one moment.
The loan has an approx interest rate of roughly 1.9% (without rushing off to research the exact figure); the graduate doesn't start to pay it back until a year after finishing university, furthermore no payment has to be made at all if this person is not earning over £15,000 pa. Even if they are earning £15,000 pa then the amount that they pay back is £20 pm. Compare this with a Barclay loan at 17.9% and monthly repayments in excess of £300 (and thats probably just interest payments for the first 12 months) then you will see that it's not that bad a deal. Grants, as you had, were available when the numbers going to university were a lot lower.
In relation to Iraq, I believe that something had to be done but am unsure as to whether all out war with the Americans in tow was the way forward at that point. I would have like to see diplomatic efforts pushed a little further. You do however mention the thousands of Iraqi's were killed as a result of the war though and althought true,this is where I have issue. If you look at the Huamn Rights issue in Iraq the numbers killed, tortured, raped, gassed by the former Iraqi dictators regime, estimated into hundreds of thousands, then I think you must agree that something needed to be done. On the issue of WMD Tony Blair as PM had to make a decision based on information from many government agencies and advisors.
In relation to supporting retired parents, I agree something needs to be done. An elderly member of my family had to go into a home shortly before she died and we were on the point of selling her house to pay for it as the expense was that great. It is however, all very well for the Lib Dems to paste their slogan on billboards and state that they will provide free care for the elderly but where is the money coming from to pay for the increasing number of pensioners. Their manifesto doesn't give any plans or costings for this!. Like I say, I agree something needs to be done but we shouldn't just run in droves to the first people that put it on a bill board or a political election broadcast. When I talk of them having no policies I mean that they have no 'coherent/planned' policies. I have read their manifesto and it is not practical. They would soon realise, if elected to national government that this seemingly endless amount of 'virtual' money they have would be no good in the real world.
Sue
Tuesday May 31, 17:51
This is a great site- realy educational. Keep it going guys.
John Ellis
Sunday Jun 05, 03:04
I see that the anti-Leech protagonists on this web site do - sort of! - acknowledge that his campaign didn't invent the concerns about the future of Christie, but that this all originated from a group of health professionals going to the press. Maybe the announcements since of further investment into the Christie do indicate that there is no threat. Time will tell.
But I feel entitled to be sceptical about Labour's commitment to our local services. After all, Labour pledged to save Withington Hospital, and closed it when in
power. Mr Bradley and his activists accused Lib Dems of scaremongering not so long ago, when we expressed doubts as to whether Metrolink would extend to Didsbury. In the
end we didn't even get it into south Manchester at all - even we never suspected it would come to that! And all this against the national background: university tuition fees and
national insurance contribution increases that weren't going to happen and then did;
weapons of mass destruction that were there and then weren't; pledges to constitutional
reform that fizzled out in an Upper House stocked with Tony's cronies; an "ethical
foreign policy" that ended up with the ex-foreign secretary who had trumpeted it
resigning from the government in disillusion over foreign policy!
Should we be reassured? We'll see. But it might be worth recalling that the Chief Executive of the Manchester Health Authority during the period leading up to the closure of Withington Hospital was none other than: Dr Neil Goodwin.
Labour activists seem to approve of debate and openness only when they drive it! Anything wrong with openness?! And does anyone seriously think that John Leech got in on the Christie issue alone?
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
