Posted by JLW on Tuesday May 31, 18:30
John Leech has now arranged constituency surgery times and they are as follows:
| 1st | Friday of the month - | Withington Library | 3.30 - 4.30pm |
| 2nd | Friday of the month - | Didsbury Library | 3.30 - 4.30pm |
| 3rd | Friday of the month - | Chorlton Library | 3.30 - 4.30pm |
| 4th | Friday of the month - | Burnage Community Centre | 3.30 - 4.30pm |
Surgeries start 10th June. It is assumed that Mr Leech will now arrange another set of constituency surgeries to accomodate the majority of his constituents who work 9-5, Mon - Fri.
+ tags coming soon
( 52 Comments )
Ian Johnston
Tuesday May 31, 23:31
This is more than Keith Bradley did - he only held two surgeries a month and these were often cancelled.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 01, 00:04
In addition to his surgeries which incidentally were held on Fri evenings and Saturday mornings Keith Bradley also operated an 'open office' policy whereby constituents could walk in at any time during office hours to speak with either Keith directly or too his staff in relation to issues or problems.
John has organised his constituency surgeries between the hours of 3.30 and 4.30. I for one am unable to go and speak with him, I'm at work, how many others are there out there in the same situation?
Benny H
Wednesday Jun 01, 01:02
Has John Leech advertised a phone number yet? There was so much fuss over that mobile answer service number being given out? Can we phone him to make a more convenient appointment. People who are in the middle of a case are bit in limbo at the moment?
Alan
Wednesday Jun 01, 01:04
I can imagine that that is a problem for people with open casework. I would suggest that you email him at cllr.j.leech@manchester.gov.uk
and explain your circumstances. Hopefully he will be able to carry on with the case as soon as possible.
Sue H
Wednesday Jun 01, 01:18
I don't want to deflect from the serious 'holding to account' stuff going here - but I just have to mention that I thought the photo that you picked for the biography on this site was a bit bitchy - like the worst one you could find - but I have just used the link to the LibDem official site, to get their side - and it's the same photo! Wow someone-buy the boy a comb. Apologies again for lowering the tone. Hair isn't everything.
peter h
Wednesday Jun 01, 02:33
grow up. John Leech did not "tell a lie". After what happened with Withington Hospital he had every right to doubt labour over worries about Christies. Fat lot of use Bradley was when Withington Hospital got emasculated. Tried even to claim that the new mini-hospital is a triumph. Codswallop. Almost everybody I know voted for John. Not nmainly because of Iraq, nor Christies, nor Lib Dem politics, but because he has worked his socks off day and night for years at grass roots levels for Withington in a way that KB never did, and achieved far more than KB did. And he'll continue to do that as an MP. Go ask any of the Residents' associations, or the schools pressure groups about Keith Bradley's "activity". Then ask them about how much John Leech did. Then you'll know why he got elected
Angela
Wednesday Jun 01, 02:49
Being concerned is one thing. Frightening cancer patients with big posters saying 'Save Christie Hospital' so that everyone thought it was closing was unforgivable. As far as I can tell as a resident in John Leech's ward his activity consisted of negative propaganda in leaflets designed to springboard him into a parliamentary seat. Claiming credit for anything the City Council or Keith Bradley achieved and blaming Labour for any shortcomings in the area. Really hard work - permanent opposition.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 01, 03:03
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what John Leech has been doing for Withington over the years? What did he achieve for the constituency? While you are thinking about that Peter I'll tell you what Keith Bradley has done while MP for the area:
Lets talk education...
1.£17m Chorlton High School for Arts opened.
2.St Pauls Primary School - Withington, opened.
3.Expanded Childrens centre in Burnage.
4.New buildings for Burnage High School and Green End Primary.
5. New nursery buildings at Chorlton Park Primary School and Cavendish.
Health:
1. £20m Withington Community Hospital after previous one closed by the Tories
2. New premises for Ladybarn GP practice and funding for surgeries in Fallowfield, Didsbury and Merseybank.
3. New NHS Dental Practice in Burnage.
4. NHS walk in centre in Burnage
Transport:
1. Keith was leader of the working party to get metro link back on track.
2.Secured £520m from the (Labour) Transport Innovation Fund.
Statistics: With a Labour Govt and Keith Bradley as MP....
1. Crime in South Manchester down by 16.5%
2. More police officers and CSO's
3. Tougher action on anti social behaviour -opposed by Lib Dems!
4. 4,600 families in S.Manchester benefiting from Child and Working family tax allowance.
5. Pensioners received the Winter Fuel Allowance and reductions in council tax bills.
6. Minimum wage has benefited over 240,000 across s.manchester.
Additionally Keith has helped thousands of people throughout the constituency with case work relating to personal problems, local issues and national issues.
What's John Leech done then:
1. Made up a bogus story about Christie closing and campaigned unscrupulously on it to get elected.
2. Posed for five minutes in a mock protest infront of Christie for a photo op for campaign material.
3. Lied about Keith Bradley's voting record in the House of Commons - further misleading the public .
4. Jumped on the metro link bandwagon in the hope he can gain vistory from all the hard work done by Keith and other Labour MP's in the area.
If you want to compare the records of the two Peter then it's going to be John Leech that ends up the loser!
Alan
Wednesday Jun 01, 03:04
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what John Leech has been doing for Withington over the years? What did he achieve for the constituency? While you are thinking about that Peter I'll tell you what Keith Bradley has done while MP for the area:
Lets talk education...
1.£17m Chorlton High School for Arts opened.
2.St Pauls Primary School - Withington, opened.
3.Expanded Childrens centre in Burnage.
4.New buildings for Burnage High School and Green End Primary.
5. New nursery buildings at Chorlton Park Primary School and Cavendish.
Health:
1. £20m Withington Community Hospital after previous one closed by the Tories
2. New premises for Ladybarn GP practice and funding for surgeries in Fallowfield, Didsbury and Merseybank.
3. New NHS Dental Practice in Burnage.
4. NHS walk in centre in Burnage
Transport:
1. Keith was leader of the working party to get metro link back on track.
2.Secured £520m from the (Labour) Transport Innovation Fund.
Statistics: With a Labour Govt and Keith Bradley as MP....
1. Crime in South Manchester down by 16.5%
2. More police officers and CSO's
3. Tougher action on anti social behaviour -opposed by Lib Dems!
4. 4,600 families in S.Manchester benefiting from Child and Working family tax allowance.
5. Pensioners received the Winter Fuel Allowance and reductions in council tax bills.
6. Minimum wage has benefited over 240,000 across s.manchester.
Additionally Keith has helped thousands of people throughout the constituency with case work relating to personal problems, local issues and national issues.
What's John Leech done then:
1. Made up a bogus story about Christie closing and campaigned unscrupulously on it to get elected.
2. Posed for five minutes in a mock protest infront of Christie for a photo op for campaign material.
3. Lied about Keith Bradley's voting record in the House of Commons - further misleading the public .
4. Jumped on the metro link bandwagon in the hope he can gain vistory from all the hard work done by Keith and other Labour MP's in the area.
If you want to compare the records of the two Peter then it's going to be John Leech that ends up the loser!
peter h
Wednesday Jun 01, 04:09
Do you really think that 12000 people switched allegiance to John Leech because he conned them?
Any massive change of voting pattern of that nature in this election was caused by specific local issues. Just look at the places it happened.
And it wasnt because John Leech conned us all. He didnt. We aint that stupid.
I can only speak for the people i know around West didsbury. Most of us are highly educated, natural Labour voters, but thoroughly disenchanted with labour . OK, some of it was Iraq, and the high handed neo-presidential style of Blair. But a huge amount of it has been simple local issues, not national issues.
You mention crime. We have some of the worst clear-up rates for crime in UK. People no longer bother to report petty crime, because the police can't be arsed to turn up for it. We saw yobs hunting with dogs down the old railway line in Didsbury. It took 2 hours for the police to respond. My daughter's car got rammed off the road on the Parkway. They told her to go round to Elizabeth Slinger Road to report it. We've reported kids on motorbikes down by the river half a dozen times. The police don't want to know. I reported something on Princess Parkway on 999. THe operator couldn't locate Princess Parkway on her map. She said it didn't exist! She asked me where Chorlton was! Crime figures go down when people stop reporting them because they know there is no point.
Education? Look at the secondary schools round here. All below National average. KB got round that one of course by sending his lad to MGS. So did I, because they wanted to send my kid to a school in Moss Side because we lived all of 1.5 miles from Parrs Wood. We can afford to buy ourselves out of the pit. Pity about my son's mates at Cavendish Road who couldn't.
Withington Hospital? The tories didnt shut it. Labour let it close, appointing some woman with false credentials to oversee it, if my memory serves me well. A fiasco. ~After that, can you blame anyone for not trusting labour round here with our hospitals?
Metrolink? Where is it then? Should I go up to Lapwing Lane and wait for it to arrive?
We've been involved with various struggles over schools, local developments, police etc etc, and on each occasion John Leech has pitched in to work on it - and REALLY worked on it, not just looking for photo-opportunties, whereas kb has either not shown his face, or stood by the party line or sent some anodyne ineffectual letter. And he paid a price for losing at grass roots. John Leech earned our respect and our votes. KB lost both.
Thomas Graham
Wednesday Jun 01, 05:30
"Do you really think that 12000 people switched allegiance to John Leech because he conned them?"
Take a look here, and you will find that 15,205 people voted for Keith Bradley in 2005. In 2001 Keith polled 19,239. Now for some simple maths... 19,239-15,205=4034. Not 12,000.
The Lib Dems polled 15,872 in 2005 and 7,715 in 2001. 15,872-7,715=8157.
I make that 4034 voters switching to the Liberal Democrats, and the remainder people that didn't vote last time and tories.
Tim
Wednesday Jun 01, 07:00
re: Alan (31/05/2005 19:04:35)
Keith held half as many surgeries as John Leech has arranged. 'Appointments are advisable', and 'Constituents should telephone 0161 446 2047 in advance.' Not exactly 'open office'.
But when has the whole story ever been posted on this site? It would just be more honest to admit this site is Labour's spin on John Leech. This 'independence' isn't fooling anyone.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 01, 11:58
Constituents did not need to telephone in advance for an office visit. They could walk in at any time, Tim!Furthermore, Keith's constituency surgeries were held at appropriate times in the evenings and weekends, not while eveyone is at work.
Re: Peter, with regards to correct figures see Tom's posting. The main reason that Labour lost it's seat is due to national issues; primarily Iraq and university top up fees. You talk about John Leech 'pitching in'; pitching in and doing what? What specifically has he done for this area, what are his achievements oer 'the many years'.You still don't seem to have answered my question.
Mark Colburn
Wednesday Jun 01, 14:46
On the issue of surgeries I remember when Keith was first elected he had one or two a week at various points across the constituency. They were reduced to two a month simply because more people turned up to some than to others. As someone who has worked with Keith's office staff for all of his 18 years in Parliament I can confirm that they would see anyone who came in the door.
Appointments became advisable simply because of the sheer number of people wanting to see Keith and the time it was taking to get through them all. Even then someone who just turned to his office would not be turned away.
Keith's Office delt with 2-3,000 cases a year - that's almost 36,000 cases over 18 years! Keith was a very hard-working and effective constituency MP, that he didn't brag about it reflects well on him.
Li Inggets
Wednesday Jun 01, 15:22
Hold on - don't the libraries have after-school storytelling sessions at around these times?
Perhaps our MP would agree to sit down with a group to relay some more of his own fabulous fairy tales.
JT
Wednesday Jun 01, 18:12
I voted for Lib Dem because of Labour's disgraceful record on the war in Iraq and civil liberties, which Keith fully endorsed looking at his voting record. John Leech's alleged "lies" pale in comparison. Talking of lies "Vote Lib Dem, Get Tory"? Well I got who I voted for.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 01, 18:47
JT, you clearly haven't looked properly on the parliament website. If you look at the public whips site you will see that Keith voted against the declaration of war! With regards to vote lib dem get tory; nationally that is true because the national race is purely between the two popular parties, Labour and Tory! I don't endorse the war personally, I would have prefered that we look further at diplomatic responses, however if you want to discuss civil liberties lets talk Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party!
peter h
Wednesday Jun 01, 22:31
you guys supporting Keith Bradley's corner are losing the plot. You're politicians , talking like politicians, scoring petty points that only matter to other politicians. When you vent all this spleen against John Leech, you can't seem to face the reality of why we voted for him instead of KB.
Like I said, the people I know voted for him because he has worked tirelessly at grass roots level for causes that mattered to people when Keith Bradley did nothing (sorry, but that's the truth of the matter. It's not a political point. It's what happened). Others voted for him no doubt because of disenchantment over Iraq. And, like it or not, KB was part of the government that took us into it. He can't claim plaudits for the good things the government did and then disavow the things which are inconvenient.
Either way, KB lost. And if you in the Labour party keep looking for excuses rather than facing up to the real reasons why you lost this seat, then you'll never get it back because your basic analysis of the situation will be flawed to begin with so your solutions to your problem will necessarily be wrong. I see no admission of your failings - which is why you lost - only sour grapes and scapegoating. Labour often seems to regard Manchester as its private fiefdom and really doesnt pay much attention to the electorate, so that it regards anybody who votes for other parties as at best misguided and at worst traitors to the cause.
JT
Wednesday Jun 01, 23:11
From They Work for You:
Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
Very strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
Quite strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
A mixture of for and against the Iraq war. votes, speeches
Very strongly for introducing ID cards.
Out of four votes he only voted twice against the war. Labour's reason for going to war had nothing to do with "civil liberties". Face it Keith got stung because he voted for Blair's policies which were deeply unpopular. Stop kidding yourself otherwise.
Labour's only comeback during the election was "well you might get a tory". Pathetic. Hope Keith's having fun looking for a job.
Mark Colburn
Wednesday Jun 01, 23:22
Peter H. You can vote for whoever you like for whatever reason you like. That's not my problem. I've been involved in plenty of election campaigns that have been lost, so I'm quite used to the electorate making choices I don't agree with. But on every other occassion I've had to accept the hard facts and get on with it. What makes this election different is the way John Leech jumped on the Christie issue and made it appear to people that the hospital was scheduled for closure. Now either he was mislead by a group of consultants playing office politics or he knew perfectly well what he was doing. Without the Christie issue I think you'd find a lot less complaining and a lot more introspection from Labour supporters.
As for grassroots campaigning could you itemise, for this poor stupid Labour supporter, which causes John Leech has championed over the years that he been successful in? Then at least I could have something factual to compare to Keith's record.
Many thanks.
JT
Thursday Jun 02, 00:15
I thought this web site was supposed to be impartial yet it's overrun by ex-members of Keith's staff and the website is run off the same computer as a labour party follower's blog. Sour grapes?
Laura Jackson
Thursday Jun 02, 00:37
JT, I look forward to saying the same about John Leech after the next election when people realise they have elected a self serving, arrogant, un educated, fickle person to represent them in Parliament.
JT
Thursday Jun 02, 01:09
The aim of this website is not to "have a go" at John Leech, but to ensure that there is a resource that keeps a record of his performance as an MP
Hmmm well it just seems like it's just pro-Bradley people slagging off John Leech and anyone who disagrees.
peter h
Thursday Jun 02, 01:46
Mark
If you think that it's not your problem who a disenchanted labour voter votes for or why, then perhaps you'd better find a different way to pass your time, because that is exactly the point of elections to begin with.
I'm not going to sit here and compile lists for you, because I'm sure you've got a computer full of the things to wheel out as ammunition, and you'll think you've won just because your list is bigger than mine. Get out and go round the local pressure groups instead of the political meetings, and ask them. Then you'll see how much work John Leech put in and how little KB was perceived to do. Admittedly, most of that was local issues with ordinary people up in arms about local labour council issues where they felt they were being rode roughshod over by local bureaucrats. I suppose you won't want to hear that since it reflects badly on Labour. But that is where John scored as far as we were concerned. He fought our corner, and if he frequently did not win because he was up against an entrenched and antagonistic labour majority, it did not take away from the fact that he fought long and hard on our behalves. In short, he represented us and did as bloody good job at it and earned our respect and our votes, when KB listened, nodded , and did sod all. If you really are a Labour supporter and you want to get this seat back some time, then a bit of humility in the face of rejection by the local electorate might just help. Admitting you got it wrong, as you must have done in order to lose so badly.So far, nobody in Labour seems to think they may have been voted out because they failed or let down the electorate. You guys just can't seem to grasp that possibility. In your eyes, it has to be some form of dirty tricks. Face the truth, mate. Face your party's failures round here, its misplaced arrogance towards the voters, its constant petty sniping in the local press, its sheer childishness as witnessed by much of this website. Then you may have a chance of winning it back. Good luck if you do. But you have to win people back, and start listening to them .
Administrator
Thursday Jun 02, 01:47
http://www.johnleech.org.uk
I'd be pleased to hear your opinions on the actual stories on the site. Do you feel they are too biased? The comments are not part of the site run by the contributors but an open forum to which anyone can post so the views are clearly going to be varied.
Sue H
Thursday Jun 02, 03:11
Yes the LibDems and Labour seem to be getting a fair share of the air-time here. I cannot see why anyone is moaning about 'who runs this site' as far as I can see there is no censorship- freedom of speech and all that. I want to know about my new MP and what he is up to.
Angela
Thursday Jun 02, 03:24
How come the LibDems assume that all contributors are Labour people - paranoid or what? I think every constituency should have a website like this - whatever their MP's political party. John Leech won - so he has responsibility now - so get on with it- and stop wingeing everytime someone wants to hold him to account for his deeds.
Mike Sutcliffe
Thursday Jun 02, 16:17
Whatever the exchanges and difference in opinions, the facts remain that:
1. Leech has still failed to justify/excuse his campaign on Christie.
2. This website is NOT run by the Labour Party, as the LDs claim. What is evident is a growing concern amongst the public about the Christie issue and the truth/lies issue.
3. We're still no clearer as to the 'successes' John Leech has recorded as a Councillor.
We're all voters. We all want politicians to be accountable. We're entitled to ask questions, especially when the answers are not forthcoming.
It's called democracy/freedom of speech...something I thought Lib Dem people advocated?
10 out of 10 to the LDs for perception, spin and leaflet regularity.
0 out of 10 for substance.
Dr. William Wolstenholme
Thursday Jun 02, 22:25
John Leech will survive for less than one year as M.P. for Manchester Withington. Then following a by-election, labour will re-take the seat with a handsome majority. This is my prediction and I have several solid pieces of 'information' to back it up. John Leech's reign is ephemeral now, later this year; moribund and before the local elections next year; finished.
Dr. W. Wolstenholme.
Manchester
Alan
Thursday Jun 02, 22:45
True optimism Dr Wolstenholme. As much as I would like to see that happen I very much doubt that it will. A cheerful thought none the less.
peter h
Friday Jun 03, 01:37
this is a sad website, it really is. I'm from a pit village, genetically programmed to vote labour, and did so for 35 years till I found to my disgust that I couldn't get my lad into a decent secondary school unless I paid (so at least I have one thing in common with Keith Bradley - we both pay to send our kids to Manchester Grammar School), and then came across friends whose kids didnt dare do a Masters degree at university because theyd get into so much debt and their parents couldnt afford it.
47 years ago, for Gods sake, any kid from our village could get to a decent school free of charge if he was bright enough. And 40 years ago ,the same kids (me included) could go to university free as long as he passed his exams.
And now, 40 years later, under a Labour government, you have to pay.
My son showed me this website. He thought it was funny to read all the petty comments. I don't. All I can see (with a few honourable and usually female exceptions) is a load of sad small minded losers pouring out sheer blind hatred. No debate, no discussion, no admission that they lost the argument with the voters despite the obvious truth. If that is representative of how Labour thinks these days, then they've lost the plot. Which is a huge pity.
peter h
Friday Jun 03, 01:37
this is a sad website, it really is. I'm from a pit village, genetically programmed to vote labour, and did so for 35 years till I found to my disgust that I couldn't get my lad into a decent secondary school unless I paid (so at least I have one thing in common with Keith Bradley - we both pay to send our kids to Manchester Grammar School), and then came across friends whose kids didnt dare do a Masters degree at university because theyd get into so much debt and their parents couldnt afford it.
47 years ago, for Gods sake, any kid from our village could get to a decent school free of charge if he was bright enough. And 40 years ago ,the same kids (me included) could go to university free as long as he passed his exams.
And now, 40 years later, under a Labour government, you have to pay.
My son showed me this website. He thought it was funny to read all the petty comments. I don't. All I can see (with a few honourable and usually female exceptions) is a load of sad small minded losers pouring out sheer blind hatred. No debate, no discussion, no admission that they lost the argument with the voters despite the obvious truth. If that is representative of how Labour thinks these days, then they've lost the plot. Which is a huge pity.
Alan
Friday Jun 03, 02:21
Peter, with all due respect I just can't agree with you. In one breath you discredit this site and then in another you start to personally insult people. Let's talk about university, I've just completed my degree at Manchester University in History and Philosophy. I paid my tuition fees and I have a loan. How did I afford to do that? I worked! I worked full time as a restaurant manager for three years. Every one talks about how education should be free. Let's look at the difference between now an fourty years ago. If we compare the amount of people who went to university 40 yrs ago with the amount that go now then everyone can see how dramatically the numbers have increased. It makes me very angry when people suggest university education should be free to those who want to go; why should those who choose not to go to university pay for those who do. Instead of moaning about how much they are in debt, perhaps students should do as I, and many others, do, get off their backsides and get a job!! I am not sad Peter, I am not small minded and I am definately not a loser and I think that your comments are unprovoked and unfounded. I support Labour because over the past eight years they have transformed this country. They have taken us to the fore front of the international community, provided jobs, prospects and hopes for those that didn't have any. You talk about how terrible it is that you cannot chose what school your children go to and how terrible that this is so under a Labour government! Lets look at the wider picture, let's look at the 1.5 million who have found a job and are no longer a statistic in the ever growing number of unemployed under the tories. Let's look at the strong economy, the introduction of a national minimum wage, financial support for those families that have to worry about feeding their kids, let alone chose which school they go to.
As a former student, who worked through his degree (and gained a lot of additional experience as opposed to just academic as a result of this) I will be doing a Masters Degree in Legislative Studies next year... How do you do it Peter, through working damn hard. From the comments that you have posted Peter and the personal insults you have banded around I would suggest that it is you who is small minded!
peter h
Friday Jun 03, 02:45
/for gods sake alan, you should not have had to work 3 years in a restaurant to pay for your education! YOu should have it free of charge by right ! Just like I did, and Tiny bloody Blair, and Gordon Brown and Keith Bradley . WE didn't have to pay our own way through college. So wshy should you?
The argument about numbers going to university does not add up . It's small minded, shortsighted and plain silly.
It's called seedcorn investment mate. The state funds your education. It gets a well-educated adult population who can either contribute to society in responsible jobs, or earn lots of money and pay lots of tax.
Why on earth should somebody like you who obviously cares and has a good brain waste 3 years of your life doing a job with no future (for you at least)? You lost 3 years of your productive life and feel grateful for it!
From my point of view as a businessman, that represents 3 years of lost productivity, having a machine lie idle for 3 years. Which does not make sense.
The state paid for me to go through university, and I used my education well. And each year for the last 20 years I've paid between £20 000 and £40 000 in personal taxes directly, and god knows how much indirectly.
If the state hadn't paid, I'd most likley have gone down the pit or onto a building site and paid maybe 10% of what I have done in taxes. That is the logic of free education at all levels. Its an investment, not a free lunch.
Good luck with your exams
peter h
Friday Jun 03, 04:19
And incidentally, alan, as an afterthought. You said you got off your backside and earned the money for education. Good for you.
But what about the family I know on Nell Lane estate whose 2 sons specifcially opted not to go to college because their family is on the breadline and they couldnt face the idea of getting into even more debt?
Or the family I know in old moat whose daughter is just graduating this summer who would like to do a post graduate degree but thinks she's already in too much debt after loans for her BA?
Or a client of mine whose daughter got a 1st class honours degree from Manchesterlast year but turned down the chance to do a PHD because she felt she couldnt afford to get into even more debt?
Those 3 examples are all known to me, all local, all single mothers,all frightened of debt, all let down by the system that's meant to protect them. You can argue as much as you like that they were wrong, or misunderstood things, but the system pushed them out of the education they deserved because they were poor. That is NOT what Labour should represent. But it's the direct result of Labour policy. My son is getting a superb education, because I can buy it. Why the HELL can't his mates from Cavendish Road Primary off the council estates in Withington get the same? They deserve it every bit as much as he does. But their parents can't afford it. ~Watching New Labour is like reading Animal Farm. All animnalks are equal, but some are more equal than others.
JT
Friday Jun 03, 04:59
"They have taken us to the fore front of the international community"
Yes the Iraq war was a real crowd pleaser.....
"why should those who choose not to go to university pay for those who do"
Graduates earn an average of 150,000 more over their life time than non-graduates. Most of this will be taxed in the top band. Why should I have to fund the non-graduates' NHS, public transport and other state supported subsidies when I paid for myself to go through University? Every non-graduate will be far better off as a result.
Alan
Friday Jun 03, 12:19
Why does everything come down to Iraq, can't people see past one issue. What about Europe; promoting trade justice and the eradication of poverty in Africa; diplomatic efforts in Palestine and Israel.
As for university graduates earning substantially more, I'm not and neither is anyone that I know. Because more people are going to university there are a higher number of people with degrees. In addition to degrees (for these higher paying jobs)employers now want applicants to have relevant work experience or a Masters. Every where I apply to with a wage over £15,000 is asking for that.
Tell me, would everyone be happy is we increased income tax to 27% on basic rate so as to accomodate all the students who are going to university.(which, incidentally don't all work hard, and spend most their money on inebriating substances) Nothing comes free and the sooner people understand that, and instead of moaning accept it and take responsibility for their lives, the better!
Alan
Friday Jun 03, 12:32
Peter, university is not a 24/7 activity, infact I had only 6 hours of lectures per week. While at university I worked full time as a restaurant manager, I was not 'standing idle' and in my spare time worked. In doing so I gained valuable work experience in relation to staff management, book keeping and customer relations - as well as getting a very good wage.
While I was at university I know that all those who came from single parent families or whose parents did not earn over a certain amount, had their tuition fees paid for them. All those whose families earned over a certain amount had to pay part or all of their tuition fees. I still don't see a problem with that. As far as I'm concerned university should only be free to those that can't afford it and need help...at present this is the system that is in place. Furthermore Peter, how can you ignore the increasing numbers going to university since your day. How are we going to pay for that? All those tuition fees, all those grants, who is going to pay?
Thomas Graham
Friday Jun 03, 14:42
"But what about the family I know on Nell Lane estate whose 2 sons specifcially opted not to go to college because their family is on the breadline and they couldnt face the idea of getting into even more debt?"
College is a different matter to university. If people choose to continue their education after 16, there is a system called EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) which was introduced by the Labour Government (yes thats right). EMA gives the poorest people (whose parents earn less than £30,000) between £10-30 a week to continue at college and is paid directly to the person going to college.
I think the issue with top-up fees is difficult. Statistically people that go to university earn more money than those that don't, the figure is suggested to be somewhere between £150,000 and £400,000 in a lifetime on average. Is it unfair to ask people to pay a little extra towards their education if they are earning that extra money?
The real point is that under the new system, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, you go to university without having to pay any student fees up front. This means that anyone who wants to go to university (and get their higher wages afterwards) doesn't have to pay anything until they are earning, and if they never earn above the level at which repayments get made the debt is wiped out.
Just compare this to the old system where students got upto £4000 a year loan, and had to pay off (upfront) about £1000 in fees if their parents earned over the upper limit for getting your fees paid. Think about it, that's a quarter of your loan gone upfront, so what do you live on? Well you either ask Daddy (if he's rich) or you go and get a job... the new system just makes it fairer.
Rachel W
Friday Jun 03, 15:27
I would point out that PhD students are usually funded through studentship programs and so you shouldn't technically get into any more debt while studying for one, unless you want to do a self funded one which are then usually undertaken part-time while you are working. The studentships aren't great money but they won't make you any worse off than most graduate friends of mine who got jobs straight away once you take things such as council tax/national insurance into account.
peter h
Friday Jun 03, 22:26
Thomas, Alan
To me the "old " system is when you went to university (or college. I use the words interchangably - tertiary education), got a grant , got educated and left and worked your way through life. You didn't have to think about financing yourselves. If your parents earned more than a certain amount, they'd be asked to contribute a percentage, but you got a grant and got on with it. And Alan, you may only get 6 lectures a week, but you're supposed to do a bit of study too in between.
The result was that everybody could afford to go who qualified to go.
And it doesn't happen now. The current systems put some kids off, and theyre often the poorest kids.
I know perfectly well, just like you two, that poorer kids shouldn't be put off. But they often are. Maybe the fears are irrational or unfounded, but they get put off.
The 3 I mentioned arent myths. They happen to be 3 families known to me. And their kids have lost out. It is NOT fair. It should NOT happen under a labour government, especially one stuffed full of ministers who all got free educations themselves.
And this crap about "why should X pay for Y" is just that - crap argument. If graduates earn on average an extra £150 000 in their lifetimes then they'll pay an extra £30-40 000 in direct tax in their lifetimes and an extra £20 000+ in indirect taxes in their lifetimes,. So they pay back the extra money invested in their education any way, and society makes a profit from its investment directly in money and indirectly in the skill base which ensues in the workforce.
In any case if you guys call yourselves socialists then you should know all about "from each according to his means and to each according to his needs". Young people shouldnt have to think twice about financing their education. The previous generation should sort it for them, just like my parents generation did for us.
And if that means higher taxes, so be it. Are our [politicians so dumb that they can't persuade people to pay abit more to get a lot more? Are they so frightened of the Daily Mail? As it happens, they don't need to raise taxes. They just need to make sure they collect in the taxes that people should pay in the first place, but that's another story. The tax system leaks like a culinder and people like me who earn high salaries pay far less as a percentage of their earnings than people on a minimum wage, which is fundamentally immoral and it stinks that Labour doesn't address that either. But again, that is another story.
Alan
Friday Jun 03, 23:04
Peter, I genuinely still don't understand why those three families you talk about have 'lost out'through Labour. Like Thomas points out, nothing has to be paid back until that person has graduated; certainly a better system than when I was at university. To me, this allows even the poorest kids to go to university. I am still not paying my loan back because I am still not yet earning over £15,000 pa (hopefully that will change very shortly!!). Even if I was being paid £15,000 I would only be paying back £20 pm. After 25 years if the full sum hasn't been paid (to my understanding) then it becomes nul and void.
With regards to tax collection and issues such as benefit fraud etc.. I think we may have found an issue that we actually agree on! However, I do believe that this government is doing more than previous administrations to combat this.
Zoe S
Saturday Jun 04, 02:20
I would just like to say a quick thank-you to both Alan and Peter H for this really good debate. I am a single mum, and I recently went to Manchester Uni - I did get a grant (due to dependents) and have my fees paid (low income). I took the maximum loan as well and my income was above benefits level. Now I am a qualified teacher. I work part-time and can earn enough money to stay off benefits - the loan repayments do not kick in yet.When my child is older I have a good qualification and can work full time and will happily pay something back. I think people should not be discouraged from going to college - and would encourage everyone to check out the facts with an independent source. It is not the poorest students who lose out under the current system - they are protected.
I think it is admirable that Peter H would want us all to have a completely free higher education like he did - but there is always a finite amount of money - and I would rather more was spent in primary and secondary education - so that everyone gets a good education.
peter h
Saturday Jun 04, 11:02
Alan, Zoe
You don't understand how they lost their chance to go to college through Labour? Because the thought of further debt frightened them off, that's why! Maybe they misunderstood how it works, but the fact remains they lost out. If you don't believe me then you havent spoken to many people at that end of the spectrum who are convinced that they can't afford to go to college.
It's frightening how many of them don't understand money and how it works. On a slightly different tack My cleaner - another single mother on the breadline - is seven grand in debt because she wanted to improve life for her kids and bastards at banks let her run up a £7000 debt on credit cards. She is now trapped in a spiral of debt she has no hope of ever escaping, because she didnt understand how money worked. I told her to go bankrupt, but she feels that would be shameful. It isn't. It's just beating banks at their own game and clears the debt much more quickly. But she's conned into believing there is some honour involved.
People like you and Zoe S are being conned. You've been conned into thinking youve got a good deal on your education. Youve been conned into starting out your adult lives up to your necks in debt before you've even started because you've had the wish to get yourselves educated.
You should be able to start your lives with a clean sheet.
Then you'll find youve been conned into wanting home ownership and taking out a mortgage. When I was in my 20s, the biggest mortgage you could get was 2.5 times your salary, which basically dictated the prices of houses and kept them affordable. To put it in numbers, if average wages are £20 000, it would mean average house prices now would be £50 000, and you and Zoe and everyone else would be abler to get yourselves houses without going up to your necks in debt to do it, because, if the average is £50 000, then you'd find starter homes at 25, and big houses for 100 (thousand....)
But people were conned into thinking that whilst inflation in normal things was bad, inflation in house prices was somehow good because the house was an "asset". It isn't good. It just drafs you into higher debt. And once you are in debt you lose your freedom to act. You are in thrall to those who lent you the money.
Youre being conned. THis country average per capita personal debt is terrifying. And the bulk of it has happened under a labour government whose moral job is tp protect the poor and less well off. This labour government has allowed you all to get buried in debt, whilst the rich have grown massively richer, the gap between rich and poor has escalated hugely. You're being stuffed.
Prosperous bastards like me are fine. I owe nobody a penny and can effectively do what I want with no fear of the result. You guys have got to pay for your education, earn £200 a week AFTER tax just to pay for a roof over your heads before you even eat, and you think you're well off. Sorry, but you're wrong. You've been had by Labour, had by the banks. Just look at how much HSBC now earns per HOUR out of this country.
Its 530 am Saturday. I'm about to get on a plane to Shanghai for a meeting monday. During that meeting, my client will place orders for 20 000 pieces of clothing which 10 years ago would have been made in this country in a factory employing 50 people.
Those factories no longer exist. So the profits on the production of those goods no longer stay in this country. They go to China instead. THat same scenario is writ large across British industry, which is evaporating daily as we speak and will eventually cripple you because you can't eternally import without exporting too. But this country is doing exactly that.
Again, getting into debt.
10 years ago I was generating business in this country from exports of goods made in this country which drectly ermployed 200 people in manufacturing. It started to disappear and go to China. It worried us . We wrote to politicians in whose constituencies the factories were - Labour politicians. They never even bothered to reply. And now those jobs aint there because we had to follow the marketplace or go under, and I spend half my life in China (lovely place, actually) as a result. I sell about half a million items of clothing a year, all from China, all made in UK 10 years ago. All profits leaving this country.
One day, long after I've retired or died, that is going to come back and haunt you.
Think about it Alan and anybody else who thinks that labour does a good job for you.
In the meantime, I have a plane to catch and a bit more ozone to destroy in the process as the plane taxis over a former bit of Cheshire countryside. I hear our nice labour council which owns the airport wants to see the passenger throughput rise to 40 million per year in 10 years time (Evening News last night). Brave New World indeed, eh chaps?
Oh, and just to make you think whilst you all go shopping in Trafford Centre today. Those nice trainers you'll see at hundred quid a pair. Eight dollars a pair ex-works Shanghai. And the hundred quid designer jeans - six dollars fifty - six dollars if we drive a good bargain. You figure out where the money in between goes.
Sweet dreams.
Steve J
Saturday Jun 04, 22:24
Is there any word on when a surgery that I can actually go to (I, like most people, work 9-5 Mon-Fri) will take place?
I think it's a bit below the belt to arrange surgeries that the majority of your constituency can't go to - perhaps consider having they on Saturday mornings.
Will John be happy to have people drop into the office (when he's got one)?
LS
Saturday Jun 04, 22:43
I leave for university in September and the idea of incurring a large amount of debt before I even start on a career, buy a home, start a family or contribute to a pension seems to me not only scary, but illogical. I am not an economist, but surely it makes no economic sense at all to have a workforce starting out so heavily in debt. It results in people leaving it longer to get onto the property ladder, especially as a first time buyer, later until starting a family (thus fewer children, even smaller workforce to support future pensions), and later until they start contibuting to pensions themselves.
A competitive, selective higher education system based upon academic merit and potential rather than wealth or school status seems the only fair and productive way to go; however at the last election I did not find any party with a sensible, strightforward and fair plan for higher eduction. As a first time voter I found myself placing a cross in the 'least worst' box, rather than finding any party or candidate with whom I could identify and fully support.
Joe
Tuesday Jun 07, 20:12
Benny, John has always had his telephone number posted on all the concil sites, and on every leaflet that goes out! And I might add it's his home number and always has been so if you leave him a message I am sure he will reply to you in due course.
Joe
Tuesday Jun 07, 20:15
You may of even noticed there is a link on this site under Biography giving his telephone numbers and both postal and e-mail addresses so I am sure it won't be to difficult for you to contact him.
Matty
Wednesday Jun 15, 10:57
Well since many of the libraries in Manchester close at 5.00PM on Friday, we could ask Mr Leech to be there later in the evening but it would be a little pointless since we wouldn\'t be allowed entry to speak to him.
It\'s weird that those who work a nice 9-5 shift should demand that John, his staff (if he has any yet) and any other people who work where the public meeting is to held should all work longer or later than they expect to work themselves. I\'m sure Mr Leech is not going to run away and hide from his constituents and that he will become more readily available when he is more settled in.
I don\'t have any particular allegiance to either Bradley or Leech but I feel the initial comment in this thread was very catty.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 15, 15:05
Matty, he is the MP and representative for the constituency in parliament. If he can't work past 5pm then he shouldn't be there. Furthermore, if the libraries close then find alternative venues!! On a last point Mr Leech is paid considerably more than most who work 9-5 in order that he do this!
Matty
Wednesday Jun 15, 18:44
Fair enough. Obviously I would expect someone with such a privileged and well-paid position to work past 5pm, but there are probably four years (and then out) of him being our MP and he makes an effort to be available in the first few weeks and gets criticized for it being at the wrong time. I'm sure that soon enough something will be sorted that all constituents can see him but maybe arrangements are still to be made or something.
If nothing is done to rectify it in a couple of months, then criticize. But for now I think it is rather harsh.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 15, 21:04
I see your point. There is nothing stopping him from holding a surgery on alternate saturdays so as to allow those who work 9-5 to be able to see him. I currently work 9-5 and should I wish to visit Mr Leech and speak to him personally I am unable to do so. I do genuinely feel that that is wrong; even though we live in a technology orientated society not everyone has the internet. I feel that it is not too much effort, or too big a sacrifice for Mr Leech to make himself available every alternate weekend.
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.
