Posted by Simon Oakwind on Tuesday Dec 19, 14:56
Rumours are circulating about whispers of discontent among Manchester Lib Dems about the performance of Mr John Leech. I hear that "senior" Lib Dems are concerned about his behaviour and the fact that the Christie scandal won't go away. Could this be the start of a campaign to replace him in good time for the next election?
What do you think? Is there a real chance that John Leech could be deselected at the next election?
+ tags coming soon
( 40 Comments )
peter h
Saturday Dec 23, 23:09
yeah, well I'm sure "senior lib dems" will share their inner thoughts with you lot.
There is no christie "scandal" except in your fetid brains.
And the christie "question" disappeared long ago except on those same tiny minds
Alan
Sunday Dec 24, 11:13
You avoided my question on the other post Peter; how did you arrive at the figure of 90% of the constituency don't care about the Christie issue? Did you poll Withington constituents, if so what was your sample/ file size? If not, then how did you reach the 90% figure with any kind of accuracy (if any atall)
Blue Moon for Bah Humbug?
Sunday Dec 24, 13:19
1. Who is this Peter H? Number one in John Leech's slapped-butt-faced rebuttal unit? Is it actually Right Reverend Lord Sir Councillor Dr Professor John Leech MP, opposition front bench spokesperson for cycle clips himself?
2. If so it is interesting to compare these "fetid brains" and "tiny minds" lines with Mr Leech's peace and love homily for the season. This popped through the Humbug letter box in the heart of his constituency recently and I've counted seven deadly sins but wonder if someone with better arithmetic will manage to boost this to the full quotient of twelve lies of Christmas?
3. The Lib Dems should deselect this lying and miserable twister. But they probably won't. They're stupid that way. He will be yet another of their one term wonders and would do well to hang on to his council seat and even unseat Simon Ashley as a form of good-life insurance. However there was talk on Radio 4 this morning of Mr Ming being for the chop. He may therefore add to his sprint record the shortest spell for a non-caretaker Lib or Lib Dem leader in the history of the sport of liars.
4. If Simon Oakwind is correct, and also the old gentleman Ming is correct about a snap election, they'll have to be quick de-selecting the grizzling one with his crutch of misery. Could this be why the effervescent Cllr Marc Ramsbottom is doing so many "poster boy" covers in the local paper? Marc has lots of time on his hands of course as he is suspended from his job over an alleged tax fiddle etc (but on full pay) but he has really raised his game just now.
Is it to be the night of the long knives? Blue moon for Bishop Leech?
peter h
Sunday Dec 24, 18:04
I made the figure up alan. poetic licence.
but can you disprove it?
Happy christmas, by the way.
as for you mr moon. Who is peter h? He is a long term (40 years) labour supporter who reluctantly found he could no longer support the current labour hierarchy after , locally, what they did to withington hospital and local schools,and , nationally, after they lied to us and took us into an illegal war in iraq, decided to privatise everything in sight and lick the backsides of the rich whilst disregarding the poor, removing free tertiary education, letting pensions fall behind wages, forcing the poor to accept a wages of £5 an hour whilst paying themselves fortunes, to name but a few things.
A socialist, in other words. remember them? probably not, if you vote labour.
Voting John Leech was the best alternative option, and he's a good hardworking MP, just like he was a good , hardworking councillor.
And your gibberish does not include one single coherent reason to think otherwise.
I just wish you halfwits would grow up and try arguing coherent points. But, if you did that, you might threaten john's position. So maybe it's better that you all just continue to froth at the mouth and make fools of yourselves and labour.
(thinks. This isn't some dastardly Lib Dem plot to discredit Labour is it? Maybe you guys don't exist. Maybe you are all noms de plume for John Leech. After all, every time you post this gibberish you probably add 10 votes to his tally at the next election - I made that figure up too, alan).
peter h
Sunday Dec 24, 18:08
I'm right, aren't I? Jesus, how could I have been so blind!! None of you actually exist! You're all figments of Lib Dem's black propaganda machine trying to make Labour look like morons. (not you alan, or you mr holliker)
Greg - Chorlton
Tuesday Dec 26, 10:22
You can't bully this issue away. Many people, including non labour people are disgusted at the way Leech behaved. He is a liar and he ought to apologise. If you think this is a non-issue only concerning Labour party members then you don't speak to enought people. try getting off your computer and taling to some residents of south manchester.
peter h
Tuesday Dec 26, 14:41
I do, mate. None of them call themselves lib dems. Most are natural labour voters. Almost all voted for John Leech. And will do until Labour changes.
John Leech is not a liar - at least no more than every other politicians (they all bend the truth to fit their need. It goes with the territory). The fact you don't like what he says doesnt make it untrue.
And it all pales into insignificance compared to the lies that took us to a war that most people, probably including you, accept is a disaster on every front.
And I don't know anybody who switched their vote from Labour in the last election over the Christies situation.
People were up in arms againsyt labour about all sorts of issues, local and national. I only ever heard christies mentioned by labour party activists desperately looking for a stick to beat john leech with. They appeared to zero in on that because they were snookered on every other issue. My basic point is that, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of that, it is now a dead issue, and yet they still harp on about it instead of moving forward and fighting on live issues. Its counter-productive for them.
peter h
Tuesday Dec 26, 19:12
and I'm not trying to bully the issue away. My tone is a reaction to the tone of the invective of the opposition. I'd prefer debate. But if they want a punchup they can have one.
bob
Tuesday Dec 26, 19:44
john leech is a liar.he nd his cronies leafleted cancer patients with a scare story that is now nationally recognised as disgraceful. leech and his henchmen can try and police these boards with their threats of punch ups but the truth will not be suppressed.
peter h
Tuesday Dec 26, 22:23
keep taking the tablets bob
bob
Wednesday Dec 27, 10:50
keep peddling the lies peter. your mate leech is proud of you.
Alan
Wednesday Dec 27, 13:55
Is it me or are the postings on this site getting a bit 'tit for tat' personal. Granted, occasionally I am guilty of this too. It so happens that the majority of the time I believe Peter to be wrong and the majority of the time he believes me to be wrong! Thats what makes debate interesting; the site would be pretty boring if it was full of people who all agreed. On the Christie issue, I believe, as many on this site do, that John Leech was wrong to monopolise upon rumours and hearsay surrounding Christie hospital for his own benefit but seriously we're all still saying the same old thing. It's not a battle with Peter et al it's a battle at the next election. Surely this is what we should be focussing on!
peter h
Wednesday Dec 27, 16:20
yes, Alan, that's the point I've been trying to make. Thank you.
Christies is a dead issue. In terms of current politics it is irrelevant.
You don't win back votes by shouting "yah boo" and just calling john leech a liar. For a start, you insult the intelligence of the people who voted for him, which is a pretty bloody stupid way of trying to win their votes back.
A bit of humility would help, accepting that labour screwed up here on the NHS and left themselves vulnerable to accusations over Christies, and distancing themselves from the fiasco in Iraq, for instance.
I don't think they realise just how boring and offputting they've become.
If they carry on like this, they have no chance of getting this seat back, because the only people listening to them will be themselves.
Personally I have a lot of sympathy for local Labour activists because National policies, about which they can do nothing, have hamstrung them and lost them the last election. But this tedious harping on about old lost battles just makes them look petty and stupid.
Thomas
Wednesday Dec 27, 16:29
To some extent Alan is right, but I don't believe Christie is a non-issue. I'll return to that later though. Peter H mainly uses the site to vent his frustration (something we all feel to varying extents) about Labour policies that don't deliver exactly what they were meant to, or that don't fit easily in our conscience or ideology.
While that is fair enough, can I suggest that he is doing it in the wrong place. I'm sure there are plenty of websites out there dedicated to criticism of this administration, and perhaps it would be more appropriate to use those to voice opinions on those issues.
This website exists to hold John Leech to account and to praise him where praise is due. Peter H (and others) should use this site to do that. The fact is that there has yet to be a news story (and barely a comment) that featured on this site that praised John Leech for delivering in our community. Why is this? Since 12th April 2006, it has been possible for anyone to add to the blog. Since then, we have published nine stories that have mainly been negative. The only blog entries that have been rejected were two posts that made claims so wild and unsubstantiated that it was unfair to John Leech to publish them without evidence, and a host of entries advertising phentermine, viagra and porn sites.
So why is no one submitting these entries? The website is an open forum for debate - that much is clear. If a blog entry is fair it will be approved. So that either leads us to the conclusion that:
(a) John Leech has done nothing worth mentioning.
(b) No one has noticed him doing things in our communities.
(c) No one can be bothered posting.
Although I've yet to see any evidence that suggests anything other than (a) to be true, perhaps if people like Peter H made more of an effort to explain what John Leech is doing people would appreciate his efforts more.
Finally, on the Christie issue. Let me be very clear on these points:
(a) John Leech (although this is about the 10th iteration of his story) says that his claims that the hospital could close were based solely on the word of the statement signed by 60 doctors.
(b) The statement signed by doctors, which was obtained using the Freedom of Information Act (http://www.johnleechwatch.com/files/Christie-review-staff-statement.doc) does not mention the hospital closing.
(c) Various statements from senior officials in health authority made it clear that the hospital was never under any threat of closure and that statements to that effect were untrue.
It is therefore very clear that John Leech at very best misled people during his election campaign and probably told calculated lies.
That doesn't explain why it is still an issue though. Recently John Leech has been putting out Christmas cards saying (I paraphrase) "I didn't lie, honest guv", and John Leech has received criticism in Parliament for his actions (both from John Prescott and in the form of and EDM).
For some strange reason, John Leech is promoting this issue and as such it is right that it still remains a topic of discussion.
Thomas
Wednesday Dec 27, 16:33
PS: Let's make that a challenge. I'd like to see my inbox full of the great things that John Leech has done (at least one a month)... why not make it a new year's resolution. If come January we haven't heard anything, I think it is fair to say that he isn't doing a great job representing our community.
Oh, and before anyone says that it isn't their job, I know for a fact that John Leech reads this site (our logs suggest it is accessed regularly from the Houses of Parliament) so there is no reason that he should be telling us all some of the great things that he has been doing.
Chris Paul
Wednesday Dec 27, 23:19
Bravo Thomas
Can you post the full text of the Drs statement at some point please? And reveal whether it was signed by (a) any and (b) by 60. Even if there were 60 in the particular collective for which it was drafted I had understood that a FoI request had found that it hadn't been submitted properly and certainly had not been signed. Had the text even been agreed at the time Leech started his unseemly nonsense? Did he start before the MEN did? Please clarify.
Thanks. The sanctimonious twaddle in the JL christmas homily was a real wind up. he has also raised the matter in a transport debate. Christie is not a dead issue as Peter H would like to suggest. It is a test case on the personal honesty and integrity of the MP. He failed miserably.
On Peter H's rant about New Labour. If he genuinely is a former supporter then the best thing he can do surely is rejoin and take part in shaping Labour policy, voting in the leadership contest, helping select local candidates, getting involved.
Having a fibber for an MP does not help Labour recover from some of the mistakes or increase the impact of the successes. There is no excuse for voting for them locally.
Chris Paul
Wednesday Dec 27, 23:24
Hi Thomas
I've now found the text of the Medical staff statement that you linked above. If you have the info on whether the draft was approved, if it was really submitted, and how many medical staff signed it that would be great.
Leech's story has been moving vastly from his initial hoax story. I would be very interested also in knowing what was in the Leech campaign leaflet that was burnt rather than distributed.
Does anyone know?
Chris P
peter h
Wednesday Dec 27, 23:44
thomas, you can't pretend this is an open unbiased forum about john leech. It was set up by people dedicated to getting rid of him. Therefore John Leech supporters are highly unlikely to bother with it.
And you can't dismiss my contributions as being in the wrong place, because they are all aimed at saying why john leech won and keith bradley lost in the first place, and the main reason for that was precisely those labour policies which drove former labour voters away from labour. So it IS relevant. A damned sight more relevant than Christies ever was.
You want those votes back? Then start being constructive, start from the point that your party screwed up big time. Then you might get somewhere.
If John does read this forum, then he must feel quietly satisfied that his opponents are so stuck in the Christies mud.
Christies ain't a "test case" Chris. It's a dead parrot.
And I don't have to prove my labour credientials to you either. For what it's worth, I'm from a coal mining family, and voting labour is second nature. It was an horrendous wrench, which still hurts, voting against them, and I feel angry and betrayed by Tony Blair and what he did. How CAN you sit there and rabbit on about Christies and never say a damned thing about how he dragged a labour party into alliance with Neoconservatives, lying to the country to drag them into a war in support of them, or removing ther right of people to free university education, without which half the current government would never have got to university? How can you say nothing about the way they've treated unions, pensioners? you know the rest. but perhaps you prefer to stick your head in the sand
Thomas
Thursday Dec 28, 11:07
1. This is an unbiased forum. If it wasn't you wouldn't be posting here. It is free to anyone to contribute in any way they like, as long as that contribution falls within our Terms of Use (see link at the bottom).
2. Although I am a Labour party member and I created this website, that shouldn't (and doesn't) stop people like yourself joining the debate.
3. My point about your contributions is simple - your reply to every comment/article goes something along the lines of, "Perhaps Leech isn't great but at least he didn't invade Iraq". That IS NOT relevant on a forum discussing John Leech's performance as an MP. Of course he hasn't voted to invade Iraq, and he isn't part of the executive, but then neither was Keith Bradley and he voted against the Iraq war (that was another little lie John Leech told during his election campaign). Yes the reasons for Keith Bradley losing are relevant when the discussion is focussed on that issue, but in general a response to a comment about John Leech wasting tax payers money by claiming his allowance as a councillor and having a full time salary as an MP (for instance) that focuses on the Labour government/Tony Blair is no appropriate.
4. Yes Peter, we've all heard you. You are disappointed with some of the decisions that this government has taken. We all are. I am disappointed that we have variable top-up fees, that we have stupid restrictions about where we can protest in Westminster, that we still have a minimum wage that discriminates against young people.
However, for me, those negatives are massively outweighed by the positives that this Labour government has delivered. Without this government (alongside a stable and well managed economy, though I'll avoid the argument about whether that would have happened anyway), we wouldn't have had the funding for school pupil's in England double since 1997, we wouldn't have a national minimum wage (remember, the Lib Dems opposed that too), we wouldn't have 78,700 more nurses, 27,400 more doctors, we wouldn't have banned hand guns and anti-personnel mines, we wouldn't have free entry to all national museums and galleries, we wouldn't have free bus travel for over-60s, we wouldn't have smaller class sizes in our schools, we would still have hospital waiting lists of 18 months, not 18 weeks, and finally, we wouldn't have 700,000 children lifted out of relative poverty. To me this Labour government has made a massive difference to the country we live in. I'm not arguing that this should outweigh the negatives for you Peter (nor do I really want the same response you always give), but just think what a state this country would be in if we hadn't had a progressive party in power for the last 10 years.
peter h
Thursday Dec 28, 15:19
well finally a considered response rather than infantile bilge.
Thank you thomas. Sincerely.
There's very little I'd disagree with there, as it happens. Apart from you claiming that your forum is unbiased (nice sense of humour you have there).
I even agree that John Leech should relinquish his conucil seat and its expenses. He can't possibly do both jobs as well as he would want to do.
Unfortunately, though, Iraq IS supremely relevant. It is the reason you lost the seat for God's sake, and you don't stand a prayer at winning it back till we're out of the place.
Consider this small point. The thinking heart of this constituency is West Didsbury and parts of Didsbury.
The 2 main paper shops are Inmans on Lapwing Lane and Leos on Burton Road. The best selling daily paper at both shops, by a very big margin, is the Guardian.
In fact on our particular paper round (Clyde Road/Old Lansdowne etc) there are only 3 non-Guardian takers.
What percentage of thos readers do you think voted Labour in 1997?
80? 90? a fair assumption.
And what percent voted labour at the last election? 10? 20?
And what percentage of that change was down specifically to Iraq?
I don't know the stats, but I doubt if you would disagree with the principle, Thomas?
Keith Bradley got caned because of Iraq. I know he protested about it at the time. But we got the clear impression that he did a bit of a protest to show willing, and then backed off for fear of falling out of favour with his Labour bosses.
Had he stood firm, stuck his neck out and stood up for his voters, he would probably still be an MP.
Christies didn't come into it. And for Chris Paul to claim that it is some kind of test of John Leech's honesty is plain daft.
People round here don't need any such test. People know from long experience that John is a hard-working representative who will do his damnedest for them. They had years of experience of it from him as a councillor. They don't need any lectures from Chris.
You asked for things John has said or done. This month
I'll quote from Lib Dem's website, (and sit back and watch the explosion - no doubt half your contributors will need to visit A+E forthwith. Pity you shut Withington, eh?):
John Leech, Liberal Democrat MP for Manchester Withington, has welcomed the opening of a new £7M Critical Care Unit at Christie Hospital in his constituency.
The new unit will have the best facilities in the country for cancer patients following major surgery and some forms of chemotherapy. This will mean that they can be cared for post-operatively at Christie Hospital instead of being transferred to Intensive Care Units in other hospitals.
The unit was first proposed in 2002, but later looked unlikely to go ahead when a review of North West cancer services was announced in 2005. This review led to 60 Doctors from Christie Hospital protesting publicly their fear over the future of services at the hospital.
John Leech and the Liberal Democrats fully backed the doctors campaign to preserve services at Christie, while the local Labour Party took no action to stand up for the renowned cancer hospital. John Leech was elected as Manchester Withington's first Liberal Democrat MP soon afterwards.
In the face of a huge public outcry and an effective campaign by the Lib Dems to resist any break up of cancer services at Christie, the Strategic Health Authority later ruled out moving cancer services away from Christie Hospital.
John Leech MP said:
"In 2005 there was grave concern for the future of the services at Christie Hospital. 60 doctors publicly warned that the Christie was under threat from the review of North West cancer services. I and the Liberal Democrats, together with thousands of local people, backed the doctors."
"It was a great example of people power, as the Health Authority backed away from any plans to break up services at Christie Hospital."
"To their shame, the Labour Party sat on their hands and did nothing."
"Now the world famous cancer hospital is going from strength to strength. The new critical care unit will be a wonderful asset to the patients being treated at Christie Hospital as it will mean that can always be treated at Christie in a state-of-the-art facility, whereas some previously had to be transferred to other hospital for some of their treatment."
"The new relatives' room will also be a great asset for patients and their relatives, as it will allow loved ones to remain close by during patients' times of need."
"I wish the Christie Hospital, its staff and all of the patients who benefit from treatment there, the very best in the future."
roger s
Thursday Dec 28, 20:53
peter h says -"The thinking heart of this constituency is West Didsbury and parts of Didsbury." you arrogant elitist sod!
peter h
Thursday Dec 28, 22:29
I didnt mean it in an elitist way. sorry if it sounded like that.
Arrogant sod is about right though...!
Now the insults are out of the way, quit dodging the question and answer the point about Iraq's effect on the vote in Withington. Or is that beyond the reach of your eloquence?
sedgelypark
Thursday Dec 28, 23:22
Peter
Although you are the thinking heart of Manchester Withington perhaps you could explain that despite the Iraq war raging why the Fib Dems lost four seats at the last council elections?
Certianly in my ward - where the war was such an issue we lost all three seats - it wasn't this time as locals voted Lab because the Fib Dem councillors were so bloody useless and/or rude.
The truth is the war isn't the issue it was in 2005 and Leech can't just run on that. He now has to run on his record which is one of lies about Christies and the fact that he is useless at both his jobs.
It's interesting to me that Fib Dems who pick up safe Lab seats often very quickly turn them into rock solid seats thanks to constant lies on the Hocus Focus leaflets but I don't think anyone really thinks Leech will hold the seat.
He's like a character in a bad CBBC play where a kid pretends to be an MP but keeps getting caught out.
In fairness to Leech his lies on Christies were only the sort of lies and scaremongering that we have come to expect from the Fib Dems. A party who say they oppose the Iraq war and yet vote to send more troops. Typical facing both ways on the big issues.
Leech will be gone next time.
Alan
Friday Dec 29, 10:03
I think that to say the war in Iraq is not as big an issue today as it was in 2005 is wrong. It is still a very big issue and will continue to be until it ends. I do however think it's a shame that the war in Iraq has overshadowed the real achievements of this Labour Government (as Thomas has pointed out... I won't repeat). If you look at this country today then go back to the early 90's you will see how much this country has improved both domestically and on an international stage. Peter, you talk about how ineffective the minimum wage is but at least there is one. I remember (God I hate to say this) 'in my younger days' I used to work on a farm, my hourly wage was £2.30!! I also worked in a hotel and was paid £3.90 per hour! Oh how things have changed, admittedly the current minimum wage is not brilliant but it's a step in the right direction at least.
Hopefully, the 'war' in Iraq will have concluded by the next election... the sooner the better as my brother is out there now... but it shouldn't be the main focus when people go to vote.
What I've noticed about the good old UK is that people don't look at the big picture, they focus on one issue. Many people who historically voted Labour probably didn't because of the war and the war alone.. it's all about emotion and not logical sense!
cheeky boy
Friday Dec 29, 14:25
The war is/was an issue of course but mst Mancunians aren't fooled by Lib Dems constant lies. The Lib Dems voted to send more troops to Iraq and then said they were anti war. Leech lied about Christies by saying it would close and then said he didn't. They are a joke. I agree with sedgleypark. Leech is a gonner. The people who voted for him last time have seen him in "action" and frankly he is an embarrasment. His high command are plotting against him and its a race to see who gets rid of him first, the Lib Dem assassins or the electorate.
Alan
Friday Dec 29, 15:36
I think that the outcome of the next GE in Manchester Withington will be heavily dependant on who the leader of the Labour party is at the time and also who they field as PPC in the area!
peter h
Friday Dec 29, 16:33
you all keep calling john leech and lib dems liars.
No theyre not. I have not once seen evidence of it.
With Christies, it is question of whom do you believe?
I believe JL. Not because I know him to be telling the truth. I don't. Just like you lot don't.
I believe him because Labour has a recent history of unpopular hospital closures. They did it in Withington. Theyre trying to do it at Hope Hospital right now despite 200 000 objections. Hazel Blears is trying to fight it. It seems to me absolutely certain that NHS accountants were running slide rules over Christies too. It's their job to. And JL fought a successful campaign to stop it progressing. That's my opinion.
You lot shouting "liar" is not evidence. It's just catterwauling. "Fib Dems"... grow up for God's sake.
If you want lies, then look in this week's paper. Downing Street says tony blair paid for his holiday accommodation in Miami. Mrs Gibb - the owner - says he didnt. They can't both be telling the truth.
Since the going rate for property lets there is $60 000 per month, I know whom I believe.
When it comes to lying, this Labour government has done its share.
Face it lads, no politician tells the whole truth the whole time.
And yes, Alan, Labour has many achievements to its name. It's a pity theyre led by a closet thatcherite and a chancellor whose idea of prudent financial management is to allow directors wages to rise 17 times faster than workers, to allow house prices to rise beyond peoples' means to pay , to allow average vpersonal debt in this country to be twice the European average and to allow our manufacturing base to haemhorrage away to China.
As for minimum wage, it's a great principle. But it's still at poverty levels.
cheeky boy
Friday Dec 29, 18:04
he's a liar. He said Christies was going to close and everyone else knows it wasn't. He's either a liar or an idiot.
Cheeky Boy
Friday Dec 29, 20:11
peterh. No evidence of Lib Dems lies!!!? You need to pay more attention mate. Christies closing. No-one agreed with Leech but he lies on a leaflet anyway. Southern Cemetery closing. Check minutes of Nell Lane residents assoc meeting.Leech is quoted as saying the cemetery will "close" he knew damn well it wouldn't. You want to get yourself a copy of the Lib Dems campaign manual. Quote "All changes to local services must be portrayed as cuts". They are taking you for a ride mate. Look into their tactics more deeply. Theyr'e not a political party, they're a franchise operation for cranks and crackpots.
sedgelypark
Friday Dec 29, 21:16
I'd forgotten about the Southern Cemetary lies...so Leech isn't content with exploitng the fears of cancer patients he's happy to lie to grieving relatives. The man has no shame.
Peter, I think you need to grow up and stop being so damned naive. I Use the term Fib Dems cos that is what most accurately describes them.
Never content with pretending everything is Labour's fault without ever once offering an alternative they always claim credit for things they have never done. Check out any Hocus Focus leaflet for evidence in your own ward.
Peter, I notice you didn't address the issue of the Fibs losing four seats last time round. Four seats that everyone accepted were lost in the first place because of an anti-war backlash. What happened was simple - Labout got its act together on a local level pointing out what lies the Fibs tell and voters - certainly in my ward -saw how uesless the Fibs are when they actually have to do something rather than moaning.
I wonder if you could also explain why the Fibs were so against the Commenwealth Games and as soon as it became clear it was popular in the city and was going to be a success suddenly came out in support of the Games. Typical two-faced Fibs postion from people who can't run a tombola let alone a city. See the mess in Liverpool over the City of Culture and also how they were turfed out in Sheffield.
Peter, I work for an organisation where everyone we represnt has benefited from the minumim wage that the Fibs opposed on the grounds it would cost jobs. For your information the min wage has pushed up wages in many sectors to a level that would have taken decades to achieve otherwise.
Peter, you've had it far too easy on here. So here's another one for you. You are always going on about Withington Hospital so how do you square your support for the NHS(a Labour creation) with voting for a party where senior figures (the Orange Book brigade) want to privatise the NHS. You cna hardly dismiss the likes of Vince Cable as sandal wearing fringe Fibs.
Mind you as a Fib Dem you are used to facing both ways.
peter h
Friday Dec 29, 22:56
trouble is in all of these things you are trying to paint labour white lib dem black all the time.
So you shout Liar at John Leech.
Whilst ignoring blatant untruths from your own side.
I repeat. I have no experience whatsoever of john leech lying.
But I DO have experience of Labour lying at a national level and arrogance at local level. At local level we had masses of experience of JL fighting our corner tirelessly as a councillor, when no labour , or tory, or green , local politician ever bothered to show up. So he got our vote. And will get it next time. He earned it.
I'm glad people benefit from the minimum wage. But even if the principle is is sound, Labour still screwed it up for fear of upsetting right wing interests. The argument about it costing jobs is PRECISELY what Labour uses to prevent it rising to a dignified level (I've seen it on this website - Alan said it). And it's bollocks. If the minimum wage was £10 an hour, jobs wouldn't disappear. Do you think Mcdonalds would close up and move? Of course not. Some jobs might go, but they'd be replaced by others because of increased disposable income. Employers would moan and then accept the reality and pay up. Trust me on that - I employ people. I think the minimum wage is a brilliant idea.
As for NHS, come on, mate! Who invented bloody PFIs? Who's mortgaging the NHS up to the hilt to private fincance companies for years to come? Who thinks it's perfectly moral to see Health Authorities deprive people of services if they can't "balance" their books, as if they were retail stores? Who's hiving off internal delivery services to DHL? Who's bringing in private healthcare companies to run GP surgeries? Who's bringing in the profit motive? Who's telling the working class mums in Salford they'll have to go 30 miles away from home to have their babies because it's more "cost effective" (sod the social consequences for the mum's family)? Who's just announced that post operative patients will have to see their GP instead of the consultant because it only costs £30 instead of £90 a visit and is not "cost-effective" (just pray the GP has specialist knowledge, eh. In your dreams pal)?
I fail to see why a Labour government should try and turn it into some kind of factory.
sedgelypark
Saturday Dec 30, 13:41
Peter, you are straying into classic Fib Dem territory when you say you have no experience of Leech lying.
Now, I could be flippent and say if you've ever spoken to him then he's probably lying but that would be unfair.
But you do have direct experience of Leech lying because you're read his 2005 election leaflet and all the stuff about Christies is a lie and a disgusting one at that.
You're right about PFIs and that's why I'm still in fighting the Blairites to make sure that the NHS`stays as free as possible. Unlike you I've not run away from that fight which is a real pain sometimes. But a fight we can win.
So the questions remains how will the left/sandal wearing hippy Fibs stop Cable, Laws and co from selling off the NHS lock, stock and barrel?
I hear what you're saying about the min wage but in real terms it has forced bad employers (not you I would add) to push their wages up from slave levels to somewhere near liveable. Don't forget the Fibs opposed the min wage every step of the way to their shame. They are not friends of the downtrodden.
I don't pretend everything Labour does is great but I do see more than 300 real gains for working people that is due to this Government.
Once again you don't engage with the fact the the Fibs lost four seats this year with more to follow.
And you failed to answer why fFb Dem flagship council Liverpool has made such an almighty balls up of the city of culture celebrations. Once agin when the Fibs get in they can't be trusted to run anything properly.
For what it's worth the reason the Fibs lost four seats was twofold.
One - the voters saw them in action and realised they are hopeless when faced with tough decisions. They're lost when they canlt just blame Labour for everything that goes wrong in a ward.
Two - Labout shook off its complacent air and took them on street by street and rebuffed every Hocus Focus lie and showed the Fib Dems up to be liars. And like the bullies they are can't take it when it's dished out. Look at the Hartlepool by-election for proof of that.
Peter, I wish you would come home to Labour because despite stuff like PFIs they are many party memebers who have principles and are prepared to fight for them. You can't say that about the Fibs especially John 'two jobs,one term' Leech.
peter h
Saturday Dec 30, 22:50
thank you for those comments. No doubt I will at some point vote labour again, because it is 2nd nature to do so. But not while Tony Blair and his ideology hold sway.
Labour will not win a 4th term. THe best it will get is as the biggest party in a hung parliament. I hope that happens so that we can finally have some form of PR in this country. Then disasters like Thatcherism and Blairism will cease to be possible.
sedgelypark
Sunday Dec 31, 11:24
Oh god, don't get me started on PR!!!
But it's good to hear you may come back and I think Blairism is in its last death thores thank god.
Peter, it's going to be interesting for you when Labout select their candidate as he/she might be so much more impressive than Leech that you might have a real choice on your hands.
Mind you, it'd be hard to be less impressive than Leech.
peter h
Sunday Dec 31, 18:59
I will never agree with you about john leech. Simply because he was a good hardworking councillor for us, and has done nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned so far as an MP.
Admittedly voting for mps is different from voting for councillors and I would not have voted Lib Dem if I hadnt lost all faith in Tony Blair.
Trouble is, Brown is about to succeed him. I don't see how he can credibly claim to be any different. He's been number 2 to blair for 10 years.
And despite all the claims about his financial expertise, I think that is a smokescreen. This country now has £1 trillion personal debt. Building societies now have to advance 5 times income to fund mortgages. Students are leaving university £10 000 in debt before they start out. Pensions have fallen way behind earnings; the minimum wage level is a joke; pensions are in crisis; massive funds have been thrown at NHS, yet it is in financial crisis; manufacturing industry is in crisis; vast swathes of national assets have been sold off, frequently to foreign investors.
In other words, ordinary people are up to their necks in debt, the nation's assets have been mishandled.
Yet the wealthy have got massively wealthier. Directors' pay went up 28% in the last year alone. From an already obscenely inflated figure. Under a LABOUR government.
I have a 6 figure income and no debts. Yet I pay the same council tax as the old age pensioner 3 doors away. As a percentage of disposable income I pay less tax than my cleaner. I have any number of ways of avoiding tax legally(I don't use them). If I chose to defraud the revenue, the chances of being caught would be virtually nil, because there is such a huge underinvestment in personnel in the relevant departments. VAT fraud doesnt get inverstigated if it is under around £50 000. There is not enough staff to do it. Under a LABOUR government.
Labour needs to rediscover its soul. I think it needs to fail at elections in order to do so.
And I hate saying all of that. A fiscally competent Labour government with an ethical foreign policy and a domestic agenda aimed at ensuring ordinary people got their proper share of national wealth and at ensuring public services were free at point of delivery and the best in the world would be a dream come true.
Alan
Tuesday Jan 02, 07:29
Why don't you stand Peter?
greg
Wednesday Jan 03, 10:25
You have a six figure income peterh? Ah! Now I see why you don't vote Labour anymore. If you don't think that this Labour government has made a serious and not totally failed attempt to address the needs of the poorest members of society and to help those in our poorest neighbourhoods then quite frankly you don't know what you are talking about.
peter h
Wednesday Jan 03, 20:19
my income has nothing to do with how I vote greg.
And I didnt say labour hadnt made an effort to help the poorest. I said it hadnt done enough for the poor and it is too subservient to the rich. Both true
greg
Thursday Jan 04, 09:38
You introduced the subject of your "six figure income" not me. Still, you have some way to go to match the near £1/4m your mate two jobs Leech costs the taxpayer each year for his lacklustre performance. Perhaps you would like to rephrase the last line of you comments from "true" to " a matter of opinion". The trouble with you Lib Dems is that you are too dogmatic. You try and bounce people off these forums by shutting down debate. Not very Liberal!!
Alan
Friday Jan 05, 08:47
Peter has a point with director pay, they should be much more heavily taxed thereby providing relief to those on the lower tax brackets. Furthermore Peters point about tax fraud is also very relevant and I hate to say true. If we do the first and tackle the second then we have an answer for the poor?
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.
