Posted by JLW on Wednesday Jun 22, 03:17
A new website that allows you to send John Leech an ePostCard has been set up. The website, www.south-manchester.co.uk, is an easy way to ask John Leech to "COME CLEAN ABOUT CHRISTIES", and explain why he has misled people about Christie Hospital's "Closure".
You can also get in touch with your MP at www.writetothem.com, and you may want to sign up for Your Constituency Mailing List.
+ tags coming soon
( 53 Comments )
Steve B
Wednesday Jun 22, 09:45
Great idea! I'm getting my mates to fill them in. Normally I'd think about voting Lib Dem but this guy is just dishonest.
Len Draycott
Wednesday Jun 22, 11:02
Well done whoever has set this up. I've also just emailed my mates to encourage them to visit.
Edwin Abbott-Abbott
Wednesday Jun 22, 11:08
The website has been setup for the Manchester Withington Labour Party as it clearly says on the site... obviously this could be seen as sour grapes but I reckon they probably have a point here - it's sounding more and more like your MP John Leech misled people.
I'm following things closely here in Henley and it's a great website you've got setup here - just a pity you haven't seen the light and don't have a great MP like we do here.
peter h
Thursday Jun 23, 03:27
grow up. get a life. idiots
Alan
Thursday Jun 23, 03:37
Peter, I always stick up for you by saying that although I disagree with you, you always put forward a well balanced argument. It's on occasions like this that I am dissapointed!! Whatever your political affiliations/ viewpoint, you have to agree that, over the Christie issue, Mr Leech was wrong!! Even if you don't agree, by saying that those who disagree with you are idiots who need to ' get a life' and 'grow up'is wrong. I have a degree of respect for the stance that you take but personal insults, in my opinion, are petty and unhelpful!
Jon R
Thursday Jun 23, 16:14
Thanks peter - we're still waiting for you and all the others who stick up for John Leech to make a comment on the fact that the much-vaunted petition didn't exist (Using the Freedom of Information Act...)
For many of us idiots this isn't about Keith Bradley's record or Tony Blair's position on Iraq - it's about a misleading campaign and we'd like to know the truth.
Len Draycott
Thursday Jun 23, 17:04
we could all be idiots...if the removal vans and bulldozers have arrived at Christie Hospital.
Peter Panned anyone?
Len Draycott
Thursday Jun 23, 17:18
we could all be idiots...if the removal vans and bulldozers have arrived at Christie Hospital.
Peter Panned anyone?
Poppy
Thursday Jun 23, 18:51
Just drove past Chrisites last night- everything seems to be still intact.
I'm seconding Alans point that people shouldn't just post unhelpful insults on this page if they feel insecure themselves becuase they were conned into believeing this whole sham
peter h
Friday Jun 24, 04:50
So, maybe John Leech took some story about Christies and exaggerated it.
Well yippee.
A politician exaggerating a story for political gain. How novel.
That's never happened before, has it?
Saint Keith never did it, did he?
Come on lads, show me a politician that doesn't do that! It's how politicians function. All of them.
Yo are all presumably Labour Party supporters. You are also presumably sincere and committed to Labour ideals.
You therefore know a thing or too about politicians telling lies, don't you?
I don't want to rub salt into the wounds because privately I'm sure most of you feel grossly betrayed by what your party's leaders have done over Iraq, don't you?
And you must realise that it is very difficult at the moment for any Labour supporter to talk about exaggerating a point, "sexing it up", or lying? Because you guys have just been betrayed by your party's leaders. You've been taken for fools. When it comes to lying for political gain, Labour has completely blown its credibility over Iraq.
I'm not having a go. I sympathize. I've been a Labour supporter all my life, and I'm appalled too. I simply cannot come to terms with the party I supported all my adult life taking this country to war by lying to the people of this country in order to give support to a US President who personifies everything that I -AND you - despise.
So don't knock John Leech for indulging in a bit of exaggeration for political effect.
The sad thing is that people would begin to doubt Labour so much that they could believe Labour to be capable of such a thing in the first place.
And don't kid yourselves that the Chrisities affair had any great effect on the outcome. I don't believe it did. Number one effect has to be Iraq and how it played. THat lost you massive ground.
No doubt there were other localised things like student fees and so on, but I think you have to accept that the rest of the huge swing comes down to long, hard, sustained grass roots work by Lib Dems in a way that Labour basically neglected, and you don't seem to realise that.
I know a lot of people who voted for John Leech. And most of them would have voted Labour a few years back.
I heard plenty of people talk about Iraq, plenty talk about how John Leech was always there at local residents meetings, protest meetings etc. Those things obviously mattered to them.
But I promise you I never heard snybody, other than you guys, even mention the Christies story. So I do not believe it registered on the political radars of most of the voters who turned to John Leech instead of Keith Bradley.
So my point to you is, whether JL was truthful or not, whether the threat to Chrisities is or was there or not, was irrelevant to the outcome of the election, and you are clutching at straws if you think otherwise. If you want to get the initiative back here, then you'll have to get back to grass roots, find out what makes people tick at local level and get stuck in.
I dou bt if you can do it, because a lot of the time that will pitch you against your party at Town Hall and National level. But I wish you well.
I've made these points before and people have scoffed asking "what did John Leech achieve?" That misses the point. Of course he was limited. Manchester Council is solid Labour and he hit brick walls much of the time. But he was there fighting the local corner.
I'll give you one small example that justy happened - AFTER the election. THe developers of the Withington Hospital site are trying to sell off the paupers' graveyard in blatant contravention of the spirit of what they undertook to do. So local residents pitched in to try to stop it and keep it for the community.
John Leech came along to help. No fanfare , no photo opportunity . He was asked and he came. And helped.And that is what he has done , week in and week out for years. And that is how he has won respect over the years in large sections of the community. He was viewed as fighting for us, whereas Keith Bradley was perceived as doing nothing. No doubt that was unfair on him and you will argue that he did plenty. But I never saw him at any meetings. Think about it. And figure out how to regain the initiative.
One final small point. A lot of you talk about the fact of JL's literature over Chrisites alarming people. I'm involved in direct mailings for a living. Take it from me as a professional that on average 2% , and never more than 5%, of direct mail ever gets read. 98% is binned without being looked at. You all read it because you are activists. Civilians chuck it away.
Alan
Friday Jun 24, 13:27
Peter, you are putting words in people's mouth. I do not feel 'betrayed' by the government. We elect them to make decisions and they made one just as Churchill did in 1939 and Thatcher did in 1982!!
Sarah J- West Dids
Friday Jun 24, 15:46
peter- I'm not a labour supporter (nor a lib dem) and i'm a 'civillian'- i read things that come through my letter box if they're relevant- not the shopping magazines and things like that- but i am interetsed in my community and would have hoped that people would make an informed choice(by reading the candidate literature)- a choice was made, not, in my opinion the right one, but is it not peoples 'democratic' right to have freedom of speech- if you don't agree with what people on this site are doing, fine have a discussion- but don't just accuse them of being angry at the way the election went. I would hope that the main point of this site is to make sure that JL represents our constituency in a decent way and carry on the work of the last guy. lets stop arguing- deep done everyone knows that JL is a liar- but knows his chance to make a go of it and try to do his best by the community.
Sarah Jackson
West didsbury redident
Not an activist
Just a caring 'civillian'
John
Friday Jun 24, 16:16
peter h said "So don't knock John Leech for indulging in a bit of exaggeration for political effect.". This sounds harmless enough except that it actually involved scaring people with cancer. Is this John Leech's offical position spoken by one of his mouthpieces or just another cynical smokescreen thrown up by Lib Dems to hide the shame of the way they climbed into the gutter in the GE campaign. Every single one of them that appeared on the Save Christie Hospital leaflet photo should and will be held to account for their disgraceful "exaggerations" not just "two wage" Leech. And yes I am a Labour Party supporter and proud of it. Its the Labour Government that is putting unprecendented levels of funding into Cancer services in Manchester and the Lib dems who are using cancer patients as a means to achive god knows what political ends as they never actually say what they strand for, and when they do it's usually unworkable, unfundable or barmy.
Len Draycott
Friday Jun 24, 16:46
Peter, yup, have noted your comments and yup, there are things in there that resonate.
But people like me get involved/care because they expect their elected reps. to go about the job with a degree of honesty/integrity. The Christie episode totally makesd JL devoid of these traits.
I recognise JL is an effective campaigner, is energetic and pro-active. Fine.
But it's the depths to which he is prepared to stoop that worry me. Misrepresentatition, exaggeration, very often words and little influence. He's the architypal tabloid politician who'd just melt if under face-to-face with critics. That I know because I've seen it happen.
He's an MP now and with that job comes responsibility, accountability and scrutiny.
Rock on.
Zoe
Friday Jun 24, 16:50
I teach older adults, some of whom are patients at Christie's. One student who has just started a course of radiotherapy at Christie was very alarmed and said to me "they are talking about closing the hospital!".
People may not believe adverts for teeth whitener or politicians burbling on about how they have 'always found knitting fascinating' to the local knitting circle. But this was a cruel and outrageously cynical ploy. John Leech MP did this in a very calculated way because he knew it would be effective, he knew how much people love the Christie's and how cancer scars the hell of people.
peter h
Friday Jun 24, 18:28
Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.
The only stick you can find to beat the man with after years of his being a councillor is one leaflet he sent out in the election campaign.
That speaks volumes.
And not one of you mentions Iraq.
Don't DARE talk about outrageous behaviour on the basis of one ill-judged leaflet, when you puport to support a government that has sent the British army into a war which has claimed 100 000 innocent lives on the basis of evidence knowingly fabricated.
In the face of that, one lapse of judgement on the part of John Leech (assuming you are correct in your interpretation of events - I personally have no knowledge one way or another) pales into utter insignificance.
Alan, if you don't feel "betrayed" by that, I'd love to hear you justify it.
As for Christies, none of this would have ever arisen if people felt safe about the NHS under Labour. They don't - especially round here after Withington Hospital's fiasco, and creeping privatization. Or this week's little gem that they've scrapped the metrolink to WSythenshawe hospital to save money. As a side issue I just needed a scan. I was told it could take up to a year. So I paid and got it within 5 days. Under a Labour government.
Alan
Friday Jun 24, 18:57
Not just one leaflet Peter but lots of leaflets, stories in the paper, public meetings etc!!
We are not talking about Iraq here and we are not talking about Tony Blair or the Labour Party, we are not comparing the two because it is irrellevant. We are talking about John Leech and Christie, stop fudging the issue!
Jon R
Friday Jun 24, 19:01
One misjudged leaflet or the crux of his campaign?
It's very hard not to read the words 'SAVE CHRISTIE HOSPITAL' and 'JOHN LEECH' as you carry the bright yellow leaflet to the bin.
At what point does an exaggeration become a lie? When is it OK to accept a lie - when it's over a war or just a local hospital? I don't want to have to accept either.
peter h
Friday Jun 24, 21:46
No Alan, we're talking about why the voters of this constituency voted for John Leech instead of Keith Bradley.
That was the raison d'etre for this website.
Christies was a footnote to the chapter, nothing more, except to activists like yourselves.
To the general electorate it scarcely registered as an issue.
I'm not fudging any issue. Quite the opposite. I'm attempting to introduce a sense
of proportion into the debate on why you now have JL as your MP instead of KB.
If you duck the issues which caused you to lose and instead pick on a side-issue and try to make into a cause celebre then you will fool nobody but yourselves and you will undermine your own future efforts to win the seat back.
Jon R is right. Lies are not acceptable full stop. As to where an exaggeration becomes a lie,that's a matter of personal judgement. Trouble is that the Labour Party in South Manchester lost its credibility over hospitals by the way it handled Withington Hospital and then dishonestly tried to shift blame to the Tories and pretend that the new "community hospital" was some kind of victory.
Fact of the matter is that this affects more voters here than Christies. So if we are talking dishonesty over hospital matters, Labour party should move out of its glass house pretty quickly before it shatters around their feet.
Christies is a wonderful place, but it is (happily) less critical to the welfare of the nmajority of local residents because of its very specialist nature. Withington on the other hand mattered to every last resident in the constituency. And they remember it.
Alan
Friday Jun 24, 22:23
I'm not just picking on a side issue Peter, I completely agree with you, there are many other issues that need to be addressed before Labour can win the seat back at the next election. I personally don't care what the original 'raison d'etre' of this site was, at present I am talking about Christie Hospital, it is an issue, all I want is an explanation as to why John Leech lied during his election campaign. I'm happy to discuss other issues and I don't claim that Christie won Mr Leech the election... all I want is an answer from John.
Where is the petition?
Who were the doctors?
Who is not telling the truth, John Leech MP or the CEO of the Strategic Health Authority?
Answers on a postcard!!
emma
Friday Jun 24, 22:36
This is getting a but tiresome now. I know there are some bitter labour supporters out there but this site is unneccessary. I have lived in the Barlow/Chortlon Park ward for several years and have always found John Leech to be an honest, approachable man. He is very popular in our area (which is mainly council housing, despite the claims that John only won due to the Student vote).
I think the Thomas Graham's energies might be put to better use campaigning to improve the community rather than slagging our local representative.
Alan
Friday Jun 24, 23:03
Emma, how is Thomas Graham 'slagging off' Mr Leech? Anyone who contributes to this site is entitled to their own political viewpoint!
If it's getting 'a bit tiresome' then perhaps the answer would be to not visit the site?
peter h
Friday Jun 24, 23:12
THere you are Emma. You have it in black and white. You're entitled to your views, but if they don't correspond to Alan and his mates, then don't visit the site!
Oh dear me... wonderful stuff. They have no sense of irony do they?
Like you said, John Leech is popular at grass roots level, and they just can't cope with that.
And don't mention Iraq......
Alan
Friday Jun 24, 23:16
Peter, that is not true and that is not what I'm saying. I am disturbed that you think that. I accept that people have different viewpoints than my own. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't voice their opinion.
What I am saying is that if Emma, or yourself for that matter, post patrionising or offensive messages then I have no time for you and I should imagine others won't either. By all means post your views, my problem is with attitude, not views.
Thomas Graham
Friday Jun 24, 23:25
Certainly Emma, I would be happy to put my energies into campaigning to improve the community (I'll even resist the obvious dig at my Lib Dem councillors) - where do you feel my efforts would be best placed?
I would point out that actually since this website has been set-up the site has not "slagged off" John Leech... I think the stories speak for themselves and it would be unfair to suggest that the news items on the site have been unfair to John. I have tried to get John Leech to contribute to the site, and the offer still remains - I have also made it clear that if John Leech feels he wants something on the site I'm happy (within reason) for it to be there. This site is not a tool for mud slinging, but an open forum which can only be good for local democracy.
Feel free to get in touch with your ideas for my campaign to improve the community, you can email me at: thomas at tgraham dot org dot uk
emma
Saturday Jun 25, 01:19
Alan, my post was not meant to be offensive but to put across my point of view and experience of John Leech. What I found "tiresome" was the e-postcard which seems childish and the registration of the domain name "south-manchester.co.uk" to host it as do not think it represents south Manchester.
Thomas, we have just had a newly elected MP to represent us that is in touch with local people and my experience of him has been positive. Why not help the community by supporting our MP and seeing how he can help the area?
emma
Saturday Jun 25, 01:29
Alan, my post was not meant to be offensive but to put across my point of view and experience of John Leech. What I found "tiresome" was the e-postcard which seems childish and the registration of the domain name "south-manchester.co.uk" to host it as do not think it represents south Manchester.
Thomas, we have just had a newly elected MP to represent us that is in touch with local people and my experience of him has been positive. Why not help the community by supporting our MP and seeing how he can help the area?
Alan
Saturday Jun 25, 02:27
Emma, I appreciate what you are saying and I agree that the community should come first and none of us should lose sight of that.
Apologies if I seemed to jump the gun!
My experience of John Leech differs somewhat from yours. I believe that his election campaign was disgraceful and I have no idea what he actually stands for. The only materials I received focused on slagging off Keith Bradley, moaning about the Metro link and claims that Christie Hospital would close. At the public meeting I attended he gave ten reasons as to why we should vote Lib Dem (only getting upto reason 7 before his alotted time ran out)which came from the national line and provided no substance.
Like I said earlier, the community should come first, I agree, and as MP, regardless of political affiliation Mr Leech should serve the community that he represents. In that sense good luck to him and I hope that he works hard and does make a difference. With regards to party politics and ideology I completely disagree with him; as far as his campaign is concerned I am disgusted.
As I have mentioned before I am a supporter of the Labour Party, and a member, but it is not biterness that drives me to question Mr Leech. Of course I am upset that Keith Bradley lost, he was a great MP and a very nice person who showed genuine concern for his constituents and worked hard for them both in the constituency and at Parliament. However, politics is politics and he lost the seat, that is the way democracy works... my biterness lies not with the fact that Keith lost his seat but by the fact that John Leech ran such a disgraceful campaign. I want answers from him, as do a lot of other people. I personally believe that it is time Mr Leech stopped running from the issue of his campaign tactics and held himself publically responsible for the deceitful way in which he ran his campaign.
peter h
Saturday Jun 25, 04:18
Alan,
If you really think that it was John Leech's election campaign that won the seat, then you are deluding yourself. You're not listening to what people like Emma are saying. You're only listening to what you want to hear, and you're calling anything else "offensive" because you don't like it.
When Emma says she is fed up with you and your colleagues "slagging off" JL, she is 100% right. Because that is exactly what it sounds like.
You brush aside the fact that Emma, like my wife, my daughter. me, and many of my neighbours plus a VERY large number of other people in this constituency , went into the poll booths with a favourable impression created by a lot of basic hard work over several years by John Leech as a councillor. You might mot like that, but it's a fact.
Throughout all of these contributions from you and your colleagues since the website was set up, there has been not one single positive word from any of you about John Leech. You're trying to paint him as the devil incarnate. How on earth do you think that makes your party look to the voters of South Manchester?
THis guy, I would remind you, has managed to get a swing of 18% in his favour from one of the most highly educated electorates in Britain, and you are trying to claim that he somehow bamboozled his way into Parliament by subterfuge with a few leaflet drops just before the election.Rubbish. It's silly, plain silly. And I do not mean that offensively.
If you lose a contest, then sit back and analyse why, and do it honestly, coolly.
It's a truism that oppositions don't win, it is incumbents that lose.
And that is exactly what you did. You lost. Swallow that pill, and start asking where you failed. Ask yourself where Labour's shortcomings are rather than kidding yourselves that the electorate got it wrong. They didn't . Labour did.
Only then will you learn how to succeed next time.
Thomas Graham
Saturday Jun 25, 05:47
In response to the registration of south-manchester.co.uk, I own the domain (which records will show has been registered for a number of years), and I was happy to temorarily use this domain to support the campaign.
Again let me reiterate the point that while, as a member of the Labour party, my view can't be impartial, I do look at both sides of the argument, for instance see the news item on the EDMs John has signed which reads as follows:
"On the excellent Pims website you can keep up to date with the Early Day Motions John Leech has signed. So far the EDMs signed range from concerns about using animal testing for drugs used on humans, rexamining the case for reintroducing small standing areas at football grouds, making St. George's day a public holiday, restoring the national anthem on BBC 1 at the end of the normal day's programming, and perhaps most importantly that Parliament decide whether to deploy British armed forces."
Disagree with me if you will, but that cannot be seen as anything but a positive article on what John Leech has done while he has been the MP. Other than that, there has been little to report, other than occasional press cuttings (see the Press link), as John has not spoken in Parliament since he made his maiden speech.
I think Zoe's letter in the reporter is right, John should either explain why he mislead people about Christie or apologise for his campaign. The reasons for setting up the website are almost an irrelevance... does anyone not want an MP that is not responsible for their actions?
The idea that Keith Bradley did not get relected on the single issue of Christie hopsital is not one worth debating - you would be stupid to assume that Labour voters annoyed by the War in Iraq, top-up fees, and other issues were not swayed towards the Lib Dems. Whether the student vote and local issues had an effect are not something I can reach a useful conclusion on, but at the end of the day that is all in the past and somewhat of an irrelevnace. The facts are, John Leech had an excellent, well organised campaign, and Labour lost this seat.
The question I ask you is, if John Leech is willing to use cancer patients, and their treatment as a political football, and mislead people about the supposed "closure" of local hospitals, then what else is he going to be willing to mislead people about?
I'm still waiting for an email from Emma about my campaign for the local community.
Alan
Saturday Jun 25, 12:45
http://www.politicswatch.org.uk
Peter, contrary to the subtle suggestions you make, I am not a spokesperson for the Manchester Withington Labour Party, any comments that I make are from a personal viewpoint, therefore to suggest that what I say reflects on the party image is wrong.
You talk about all the 'hard work' John Leech has put in as a councillor as though it is something to be reveered. That isnot why the people of Manchester Withingon voted for him! They voted for him as a 'punishment' vote against Labour. They were not happy about the Iraq situation or university top up fees as Thomas quite rightly points out.
I have been told of the multitude of emails and letters sent to Mr Bradley in the weeks following the election from people who had voted Lib Dem; apologising because they hadn't meant for Mr Bradley to lose the seat. What they had intended to do was send a message to the Prime Minister, unfortunately that message turned out to be more severe than theyhad intended.
Furthermore, Leech's materials that refered to Keith as 'Tony Blair's Labour Man' and suggested that Keih had been in favour of the war also turned votes against him. I spoke to several people during the campaign who were genuinely suprised to hear that Keith had voted against the declaration of war!! They had believed the rumours spread by the Lib Dems!
On one last note Peter, lets get real, I am a member and supporter of the Labour Party, I fully supported Keith Bradley; I'm hardly going to be singing the praises of John Leech am I? 'Devil Incarnate'however; I feel is too far fetched a comparison!
peter h
Saturday Jun 25, 13:40
Alan
At least you finally accept that the Labour party lost this seat in large measure through its own failure not through John Leech's mailshots, however you may view them . Now you have to figure out how to reverse that, because you didn't just lose in line with the national swing, you got absolutely hammered. And a very large dose of humility is needed,rather than the desperate search for scapegoats and excuses that has been apparent so far (nothing personal to you).
Starting with NOT insulting the intelligence of those people who voted for JL and then swallowing your pride and looking at his strong points in order to match and beat them. JOhn does a bloody good job at what he does. You guys should accept it , admire it, and figure out how to do better. Juvenile letters to local papers blaming everything on cheating by the opposition appeal to nobody but those who already agree with you and are counter-productive. They just read like unintelligent sour grapes.
I make a living selling product. I do so very successfully. I have to compete against some consummately sharp operators. I never insult the competition, because that indirectly insults my clients for having bought the competition's product and just makes my job harder.
Instead, I praise the competition, but make sure I offer something even better. It's called tactics. Learn it. Lib Dems are rather good at that, in case you havent noticed. They make a great play of claiming to support Labour when they agree with them. Excellent tactics.
Alan
Saturday Jun 25, 14:53
Peter, I agree that Mr Leech didn't win purely through Christie or any other such issue. He may be very hardworking and I am glad that he is. I have always always been of the view that the Labour Party in Withington needs to move forward after the election and I believe that it should focus on local issues and start the campaign for the next general election now. There is much to do and I am confident that the party will move forward to be successful once again at the next election.
With regards to Mr Leech I do wish him luck but at the same time I want him to explain the stance he took on Christie. The Christie issue is a product of the general election campaign, granted, but questions need to be asked and I am (along with others) asking them and we want answers.
This doesn't mean that we are narrowly focussed on just one issue. There are many other issues such as Iraq, top up fees, John's standing in the community, Labour's standing in the community etc that need to be addressed. However, at present, I am addressing the Christie issue and I want some answers from Mr Leech, as do a large number of the public in Manchester Withington!
Out of interest Peter, what would it take for you to vote Labour again at the next GE. Both from a local perspective and national?
peter h
Saturday Jun 25, 17:03
Alan
It isn't people like me you have to win back. My beliefs are what you'd probably call extreme, and are irrelevant to your cause.
It is the mainstream you have to win back.
Labour is supposed to be the peoples' party. It has to find that again. The whole New Labour concept has degenerated into arrogance. The only reason Labour won the last election was because there was no credible opposition nationally. That won't last for ever.
emma
Saturday Jun 25, 19:32
Thomas, apologies you haven't received my email. I thought your request for suggestions was sarcastic. My apologies. One suggestion I would have, as you seem to be a talented web designer, is to use the south-manchester.co.uk domain to create a community-based site that includes other issues than John Leech. I work in web design myself for a number of housing association clients who use the internet as a means to help the community so would be happy to help out with any practical suggestions I can make.
Thomas
Saturday Jun 25, 20:13
I would be happy to support a community based website for sout-manchester.co.uk, though quite what you have in mind I don't know - please do email me. It is only temporarily being used for the ePostcard.
Alan
Saturday Jun 25, 23:21
http://www.politicswatch.org.uk/30.html
In light of Peter's comments I have created a survey on my website asking all those that take part their views on why Labour lost the election. Additionally I ask what Labour would have to do to win those votes back. The survey is not intended in any way to be biased or one sided and I hope that as many people will fill it out as possible.
Please visit www.politicswatch.org.uk/30.html
All comments and results will be displayed at the end of the month.
Tim
Sunday Jun 26, 00:02
It is typical of the 'unbiased' approach Labour Party members are taking to this that they REQUIRE a name and postcode in order to criticise (constructive or otherwise) the Labour campaign. (Which will mean you can be identified from the electoral register). They have also tagged on a 'do you think John Leech is doing a good job' question, when clearly asking about their own campaign.
Yet on this site no one has any required fields. It is clear that the webmasters are happy to let anyone make any unattributed comments for or against John Leech, but they want to be able to attribute them if they talk about the Labour party.
Oh, dont worry though because the Politicswatch website 'operates independently of any political party' - despite Alan (who admits to being a Labour Party Member, Keith Bradley supporter and strong critic of John Leech) describing it as HIS website.
Balance, unbiased - please review the meaning of these words in the dictionary.
As for John Leech misleading people. I suggest that the people who run these sites also see 'hypocrite' it the dictionary.
Alan
Sunday Jun 26, 00:33
http://www.politicswatch.org.uk/index.html
Tim, yes I am a Labour Party supporter. If I was a Civil Servant I would still be a Labour Party supporter but would remain politically neutral as would be expected of me as a civil servant.
With regards to your point about the name and postcode i agree and will therefore make them non mandatory fields.
The survey is an honest attempt to gain an understanding as to why people like yourself did not vote for Labour and what you believe Labour would need to do in order to sway the vote back in their favour at the next election.
A further point that needs to be made with regards to the survey, as most people will have figured out,is that there is nothing to stop anyone from using an alias or from using a false postcode.
Just because I am a critic of Mr Leech and the Liberal Democrats it doesn't mean that I am not interested in the views of others as you will see if you look at the letters section of my site.
Yes, Politics Watch is critical of Mr Leech but I openly invite any supporters of Mr Leech or critics of the site to email or post any comments they may have.
Thomas Graham
Sunday Jun 26, 00:50
"Yet on this site no one has any required fields. It is clear that the webmasters are happy to let anyone make any unattributed comments for or against John Leech, but they want to be able to attribute them if they talk about the Labour party."
Have you tried posting with no name? I don't really understand your argument - are you praising this site for being pretty much anonymous, or is that a problem too. I doubt you would be happy if you had to submit your postcode. However, we do record the IP address from which posts are made, and to give an example, it is possible to see that Cllr Keith Whitmore posted from the Town Hall, and someone else calling themselves "Thomas Graham" and purporting to be me also posted from the same Town Hall IP.
On a different subject altogether, should we spend £98Million on fixing/modernising/refurbishing the town hall? (see Fri MEN)
Tim
Sunday Jun 26, 04:11
Alan. Thank you, thats much fairer.
Thomas, I was pointing out the double standard rather than saying one was better than the other.
How does this IP address stuff work, as you have said you think i have posted using another name before (which I haven't)?
peter h
Sunday Jun 26, 04:31
Thonas
THe town hall's worth renovating. It is one of the greatest public buildings in Europe. It symbolises this city.
As for renovastingits inhabitants, well, theyre beyond help.
But one needs to see where the £98 million figure comes from.
Tim
Sunday Jun 26, 04:32
Would someone please distil the questions that are being asked of John Leech MP for me?
(Please try to be constructive rather than emotional about it).
The ones I can see are as follows:
1. Why did John Leech believe the hospital was under threat of closure?
2. Did the petition exist?
3. Can someone find a doctor who thinks the hospital was under threat of closure?
Is this a reasonable list?
Thomas Graham
Sunday Jun 26, 05:00
I think your questions are about right, though we know the answer to the second one. However, I would suggest that the real question is why did John Leech think it was an acceptable issue to use when it was clear that the review was not going to close the hopsital and the statement doctors signed did not suggest the hosptial would close just that they were worried about the "dislocation of services". I think that the Manchester Evening News has to take it's fair share of the blame, and I just think it is regrettable that John Leech did not research the issue thoroughly before turning up outside the hospital with a petition and a banner and campaigning. I think the most constructive thing that can happen is that John Leech respond with an apology and as he said in one newspaper "if that is jumping on the bandwagon, then fair enough".
With regard to IP addresses, it's not necessarily you posting Tim, just from the same computer - its complicated.
Generally when a computer connects to the internet it gets an address which is called an IP address - basically the same as any other address - which tells you where the computer is. IP addresses (in their current state) take the form of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx. IP addresses are handed out in groups, and you can find out who "owns" a group of IP addresses. It is usual for someone that has broadband to had a fairly static IP address, but if you use dialup it can change regularly. So for example, someone posting from the Town Hall might post from the following IP address: 194.70.181.1, and it is possible that that IP address corresponds to
inetnum: 194.70.181.0 - 194.70.181.255
netname: MANCHESTERCITCL
descr: Manchester City Council
The problem that occurs (which is why I said it was unlikely that you had not posted as Dave) is that sometimes IP addresses are hidden or pooled or you access the internet through a proxy server. It would appear that NTL use this feature and any visitor from an NTL connection will have an IP Address like 80.5.160.9. I apologise for jumping to conclusions, it seems likely it wasn't you.
Alan
Sunday Jun 26, 12:23
I agree that the Town Hall should be renovated. Before any decision is made, everyone should be clear on exactly what the £98 million is being spent on. My recent experience of bulders is that they charge ridiculous amounts and then at the end of the job try to add on a good £20,000 extra which they put down to various "misc" jobs.
Furthermore, lets remember that £98 million is a lot of money and nearly 1/5 of the budget currently set aside for the Metro Link Expansion. Should public money be spent in this way? As it is an historical building in adition to a government building could renovatins not be funded/part funded by the National Lottery?
Thomas
Sunday Jun 26, 15:12
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/163/163710_100m_repair_bill_for_town_hall.html
This is the article: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/163/163710_100m_repair_bill_for_town_hall.html, apparently "A £2m programme of repairs has already been agreed for 2005-06, including £400,000 for heating and electrical work and £300,000 to improve disabled access to the library.
The staggering price is equal to a bill of more than £588 for each of the 167,451 households in Manchester."
Thats a bit misleading, its about £588 for the £98Million required per household. I'd agree with Alan, that while it should be renovated and it is a part of manchester which we should be proud of, £98Million is an awful lot of money that could be spent on a huge amount of improvment in local education and transport.
peter h
Sunday Jun 26, 22:27
£98 million is only a lot of money , within this context, if you judge it as 1 years expenditure. Assuming that it is the sort of thing you have to do every 100 years, then it is not so great.
However, it is almost certainly a huge over-estimate.
Bottom line will be that Manchester will be obliged to do whatever it costs though. It would be unimaginable that they let the city's figurehead building go to rot. So you should direct your energies ensuring the money is properly spent. There's no real way to ask national government either. Otherwise every town hall in UK will be there with a begginf bowl
Dave Wilson
Monday Jun 27, 17:44
Hi I am new to the forum, and don't know if any body cares about my opinion, but I will give it anyway.
I used to vote Labour at the General Election. They were a breath of fresh air in 1997. They did so much for this nation, such as the national minimum wage. However, as time went on cracks appeared. Such as GM crops, War with Fear, student fees, asylum, eroding our civil liberties, War on drugs etc etc.
Therefore, in 2005, I felt I was left with no choice but to vote lib deb and John Leech. My reasons other than being a protest at Blair and his cronies, was that the Conservatives, a) do not have any good policies that I can see, and b) they didn't stand a chance of getting in the Withington area. So I was left with the lib dems, who a) were the only ones with a chance (even though I didn't expect them to win) and b) when I looked at the manifesto, looked like they had some good policies.
Yes John may have made a mistake, but who was challenging him on the run up to the election? I didn't see anything until afterwards? However, we all make mistakes, we all tell lies (to some degree or other). However, I think I shall reserve full judgement until the next election, and if he is worthy of a second tick in the box from me, then I will give it to him, otherwise, I will make an informed choice on voting someone else!
Len Draycott
Monday Jun 27, 19:37
I think people need to respect the right of the individual to criticise JL on Christie Hospital. From what I've just read, it appears accepted that he does have a case to answer - even if opinion is split over the magnitude of his 'crime.'
JL's inability to provide a decent justification to date mean his integrity is questionable. It means people should ask 'is this a truthful account' when receiving Lib Dem literature.
The question of respective Lab vs Lib Dem campaigning/policies is altogether different and merits earnest debate. Yep, the Blair/Iraq factor is relevant, but so is the fact that Lib Dem policies nationally demand more scrutiny and those that do are chopped and changed at alarming regularity.
And then you have to reconcile the right-wing Lib Dems courting Tory votes in some parts of the country and the liberal lefties courting disillusioned Labourites in others. That doesn't knit well.
I respect the Lib Dems for their energetic pavement politics and ability to get things through letterboxes. I just don't think there is much substance beyond that.
Dave Wilson
Monday Jun 27, 21:01
Hi Len, I like some of your points that you made.
However, do you think that the terms left, centre and right, are relevant anymore when talking about the three main political parties? After all, the Labour party call it PFI, but that is just another name for shared privatisation, something the Tories do? The fact that the Lib Dems are scrutinized so much, I think, is due to the fact that they are so "honest" (I use the term honest, but I do not think anyone, politican or otherwise, is or can be ever truely honest). They are very open about increasing certain taxes - a policy that very few other parties would even openly discuss.
I do agree that JL has to be more open about where he got his information from regarding Christies, to appease a lot of people (especially a fair few who acces this site!). That said, the Christies issue, wasn't a factor in my choice of candidate at the election.
Zoe Sharma
Monday Jun 27, 21:03
Just as a point of clarification, Chorlton Park Labour Party does not have a member called 'Emma'. Emma claims to be member??
Zoe
Monday Jun 27, 21:06
Sorry - I was reading the wrong post.
peter h
Monday Jun 27, 21:47
I trust that all you labour party members who are pursuing John Leech so assiduously about Christies will be paying due attention to the BMA conference in Manchester this week - notably the widespread distrust amongst senior doctors nationwide about creeping privatization within the NHS, and the necessary change of emphasis which happens when you introduce the profit motive into Health Care ?
Just like with dear old Jamie Oliver trying to improve school meals to improve kids health, only to find that outsourcing kids dinners meant that profit was the driving force behind the turkey twizzler crap being fed to kids by huge companies .
You no doubt saw what that did under Thatcher when they privatized cleaners - and introduced the notion of collateral damage (5000 MRSA deaths a year) in pursuit of cost savings.
Well expand that. Sit back and think what the NHS Chief Executive , one Nigel Crisp (sic - oh dear me! Just like Rentokil is one of the companies supplying school dinners), means when he says hospital "should adopt the same marketing techniques as Tesco in their bids to win customers in the new choice-based NHS market".
What the hell does that mean? Loyalty cards for cancer patients? Do you really trust an NHS being led by some jerk who can make statements like that? Exactly what mindset does that betray to you?
"Choice" means two things . Take it or leave it? Who on earth wants choice when they're fighting for their life with Pneumonia? Or do we choose which queue to join trying tro get an NHS dentist? Or do we "choose to go to Wythenshawe" instead of Southern Cemetery? There IS no choice for ordinary people.
I hope you all read the reports of the debates coming from the BMA this week. And then try criticising John Leech for doubting Labour Party sincerity towards the NHS.
The Labour Party's one great historical contribution to Postwar Britain has been the Welfare State. And they are selling it off bit by bit.
Mike Harding at the weekend called New Labour "Old Thatcher". How apt.
I look forward to see you expanding the same energies criticizing your own leaders as you do against John Leech.
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.
