Posted by Thomas Graham on Wednesday Apr 12, 12:00
Welcome to the new John Leech Watch - you've probably noticed it looks a bit different, but there is a major difference.
Now you can add blog entries yourself - if you see or hear something that John has done that should be mentioned then, using the "Add to the Blog" link at the top of this page, you can post to the blog yourself.
As John Leech Watch is still a work in progress if you have any problems or ideas how it could be improved please don't hesitate to get in touch via email.
+ tags coming soon
( 116 Comments )
Steve
Wednesday Apr 12, 16:52
Sounds like a good idea to me! Anyone got any view on this?
peter h
Wednesday Apr 12, 23:34
no
Thomas
Thursday Apr 13, 02:27
No views on this at all? Very unlike you Peter! Well I'd hope it is useful, otherwise I've wasted my time Steve!
peter h
Saturday Apr 15, 14:56
maybe it needs a decent burial
Alan
Saturday Apr 15, 18:44
Come on Peter you love this site!!
Blairite and proud
Saturday Apr 15, 21:43
Yes it is amazing, if we really want to hold JL to account maybe we shud ak him why he is is still a councillor?? Hmm . . .
peter h
Saturday Apr 15, 23:32
you obviously attended one of blair's academies, judging by your spelling. He's a councillor because he was elected a councillor
Blairite and proud
Sunday Apr 16, 18:04
What I can't spell because I had a comprehensive education. The point I am making is how can he be represnting the people of Chorlton Park, when he is in London for most of the week.
peter h
Sunday Apr 16, 20:28
fair point. he should put that right.
there again, how can your lot ignore the decision of the electorate to remove keith bradley? we voted him out, blair ignored us and took him through the back door via the lords. Call that democracy?
Blairite and proud
Sunday Apr 16, 21:35
No I am not ignoring the decision of the electorate, I may not like it but I have accepted it.
However, by undertaking both jobs he is doing neither properly. When he is in parliament, at certain times he will b working under a 3 line whip so there is no way he can do his job as a councillor.
And btw I agree that Lords reform is needed.
Alan
Monday Apr 17, 11:24
Peter, you seem obsessed about the fact that people like myself have somehow ignored the electorate's decision?? I don't think anyone has ignored it. Like B&P said I may not like the decision but I haven't ignored it.
Furthermore, if you ask most of the people that for the first time voted for JL at the election instead of Keith, you will find, it was not because of Keith himself but because of national policies, like the Iraq war. I think that we have established previously that Keith voted against this!!! Keith was the victim of constituents disagreement with the Labour Party nationally and Tony Blair; I fail to see how the elevation of such a hard working, intelligent and honest person into the House of Lords is not of benefit to this country and Manchester.
Furthermore, when you look at the dross that is elected in by your beloved ' democratic' means such as John Leech, Frank Dobson, Claire Short et al then you have to wonder whether it is the House of Commons that needs reforming as opposed to the House of Lords!
Blairite and proud
Monday Apr 17, 12:40
Its gr8 that Keith has gone to the Lords because from there he can press for the metrolink expansion to South Manchester.
peter h
Monday Apr 17, 21:09
bradley was voted OUT by the constituents. You can't get round that fact. And, Alan, if he was against the iraq war, he wouldnt be getting rewarded now. I seem to recall he voted against it once, then ducked the issue.
peter h
Tuesday Apr 18, 18:44
I've just read Alan's thing above properly, where he refers to Frank Dobson and Claire Short as "dross".
I see. Labour MPs with the guts to stand up for what they believe in are "dross" , are they?
Quoted by Labour party activist.....
As for reforming Commons, of course you're right , Alan. We need PR , so that your pals don't get a majority in parliament with only 36% of the vote.
Any grownups out there supporting the labour cause?
Blairite
Wednesday Apr 19, 00:45
I wouldn't quite say they are dross but there is no real exuse for defying the whip as often as they do.
Being incredibly pro war I couldn't comment on Keith's situation; but I saw the way John ran that campaign and thats whats caused the bad feeling.
The way John conducted himself rather than the fact Keith was voted out.
peter h
Wednesday Apr 19, 10:53
john leech didnt just conduct a campaign though. john spent years at grass roots level working for his constituents in a very active and vocal way, turning up at local meetings in a way that labour has forgotten how to.
I know a lot of people who voted for him. Almost all are ex-labour voters who got fed up with labour's perceived arrogant attitude at local levels, and turned to people like john simply because they tried harder.
If you have residents' meetings, parents' groups etc who organize themselvers because they care about those issues, who find that week in and week out the lib dems come along and join in and then go and fight their cause for them in council chamber, whilst labour forgets about them till election time, then you have a grassroots support amongst those people most likely to vote, which labour, certainly in south manchester, has forgotten about.
Then onto that you graft the effects of the iraq war, university fees, health service worries, and you have keith bradley out on his arse.
Local labour activists sit there , scratch their heads, bleat on about some individual items in campaign leraflets which nobody else but them read and which they didnt like, and completely miss the point of why they lost so spectacularly.
Then, instead of a bit of humility after the election, and acceptance of mistakes, you get halfwits like chris paul bombarding the local press with anal-retentive incoherent drivel which makes the labour party look like a bunch of arrogant witless bad losers, instead of the peoples' party that it should be.
No doubt he thinks he is being very clever. He just makes the labour party look stupid.
You guys lave a lot to learn if you want to win back hearts and minds in this area.
Alan Gormley
Wednesday Apr 19, 18:37
How many 'grass roots' planning meetings has John been to recently Peter? I don't know the answer but if it is a hell of alot less then I can't criticise him for it... actually yes I can because he is still in his position as Cllr. However, spending Monday - Friday in London, probably saturday dealing with constituency business and of course Sunday to spend doing amateur dramatics.. where does he find the time!!
Blairite and Proud, you say that you are very pro war in Iraq; for what reasons? I personally sit on the fence, elements of me agree with it but elements of me don't.
peter h
Thursday Apr 20, 21:21
as a matter of interest, alan, did you actually vote for keith bradley at the last election?
as for Iraq, I remember listening to the defence spokesman for the monster raving loony party. he said his policy on de fence was to cover it with wet paint to stop politicians sitting on it.....
and their education policy was to get smaller classes by moving the desks closer together. Don't tell Chris Paul...he'll write a 5 page letter about it
Alan
Thursday Apr 20, 22:08
Very silly question Peter!!I don't think I need answer it. Just trying to be fair to old Leechy.... you'll probably be pleased to hear that it causes me serious pain to do so!!
A question for you Peter... education.. do you think that this has improved under Labour, if not, why?
peter h
Friday Apr 21, 06:47
not a silly question alan.
did you vote for keith bradley or not?
Alan
Friday Apr 21, 18:01
No I didn't Peter I voted for John Leech instead... that's why I'm always saying nice things about him on this site.
peter h
Friday Apr 21, 22:54
alan, youre ducking the question. It's very simple. Did you vote for Keith Bradley in the last election?
Alan's Mate
Saturday Apr 22, 16:59
Don't you live and work in Warrington Alan?
peter h
Saturday Apr 22, 20:29
come on alan, we're waiting....is it true that the main protagonist in the antijohn leech campaign doesnt even live in the consitiuency?
Poppy
Saturday Apr 22, 20:45
I thought Alan was in the marines somewhere down south..
Alan
Sunday Apr 23, 13:50
Ok Peter Paxman I will dodge the question no longer!! I was living in Didsbury at the time but was still registered to vote in my parents constituency of Weaver Vale. As I have always voted for Mike Hall I continued to do so . I did however work on Keith Bradley's campaign for several months and therefore had a greater understanding of issues in Manchester Withington as opposed to Weaver Vale.
I'll be honest I thought that Keits re-election was a 'done' thing; had I known then I would have registered to vote in Withington constituency.
As for 'my mate' no I don't live and work in warrington, where I live now is none of your business and I work in Manchester.... clearly not a 'mate' I know very well.
Furthermore Peter, my stay outside the constituency is due to come to an end because I am moving back to Didsbury within the next two months. Is there anything else relating to my living arrangement, voting record you ould like to know about... perhaps my bank details??
peter h
Sunday Apr 23, 16:16
so you don't actually live in the consituency, and are not registered to vote here either. Odd that KB has to rely on outsiders to defend him. And of Thomas lives down south now too.
Some local politics, this!
peter h
Sunday Apr 23, 16:16
so you don't actually live in the consituency, and are not registered to vote here either. Odd that KB has to rely on outsiders to defend him. And of Thomas lives down south now too.
Some local politics, this!
Alan
Sunday Apr 23, 22:22
From the second I started working with Keith, Peter I saw what a great politician he was; he cared about the constituency and his consitiuents, dealt with numerous issues and answered all letter sent to him. That is why I back him to the hilt and always will do. I could live in Aberdeen and I would still be answering you back on this site.
I did live in the constituency at the time but like I said did not register to vote in the constituency and in 2005 voted for Mike Hall who works equally as hard as Keith did.
In my mind Peter it's not about outsiders, it's about people who recognise others who do, or have done a damn good job!! Shame the armchair pundits in Manchester Withington can't do the same!
Thomas
Sunday Apr 23, 22:27
And of Thomas lives down south now too? I don't quite understand you peter, but I think you mean I live down south.
I spend the working week down south, but still live in Withington, near Christie Hospital.
I will be moving to Edinburgh in September, but again will still live and continue to be registered to vote in Mancheseter Withington constituency.
Thomas' Mate
Sunday Apr 23, 23:31
Tom, aren't you being a little economical with the truth? It's not that long along you were moaning about moving to an area where Labour came third. You wouldn't be keeping your vote in withington just because you think Labour might need it more would you? Mind you, you like to be economical with the truth don't you? Contacting Tony Parkinson and claiming to be a new voter interested in hearing his views, while at the same time posting his picture on your blog asking if anyone recognised him. I also seem to remember some months ago on your blog you were talking about an interesting new website keeping an eye on new MP John Leech, which of course you were responsible for setting up. You're not very honest, are you?
So the 2 people most responsible for this site are both not living in the Constituency.
Here's another interesting question - does Alan work for the Labour Party?
peter h
Sunday Apr 23, 23:36
seems to me that the main opponents of john leech seem to be outside his constituency, which suggests that his constituents are happy with him - as they should be.
And it seems very odd that his most vociferous opponent does not live in the constituency and made no effort to make this clear till he was smoked out. Of course you have a right to comment, Alan. You also have a duty to state that you are not a voter in this constituency, and you manifestly failed to do so until forced to do so.
For me, as a local voter, it leaves a very sour taste
As for your comments about bradley being a fine MP who answered all his letters, yes, well I can remember the tenor of his answers to queries we raised. Personally I felt fobbed off by them. We felt in this household that the man just made the noises he thought we wanted to hear and then did sod all.
Alan's mate
Sunday Apr 23, 23:44
Alan, you claim that you lived in the Constituency during the election? That's not what you have said in the past, is it? You've also said before that you about to return to the Constituency. Is this another bit of Labour spin?
Pigeon Watcher
Sunday Apr 23, 23:52
Anybody remember Blair's Bloggers slagging John Leech for sorting out the pigeon pooh in Burnage? Guess what? Now local Labour Campaigner Frank Duffy is claiming the credit for it. Apparantly he has got the Council to net the bridges. So what's the truth then Blair's Bloggers? Bit more of Labour spin, or just downright lies???? Just in case nobody knows, the Council has not netted the bridges - the work has been done by contractors for Network Rail following action from John Leech and Cllr Rod Isherwood. More Labour crap, if you pardon the pun! Oh, and just in case Burnage residents might have been fooled by Mr Duffy, all the affected residents have already received a letter from the Lib Dems about it, including a copy of of the Network Rail letter, agreeing to do the work. Never mind Mr Duffy, I'm sure the residents of Burnage won't be too upset by your false claims.
Thomas Graham Watch
Sunday Apr 23, 23:57
I've just found the following on Tom's blog from May 2006
Also I have spotted this website: www.johnleech.org.uk which is watching our MP apparently.
Right, I’m off to the pub to watch Preston V Derby at the pub.
It kind of gives the impression that Mr Graham doesn't know where the site has originated from. Interesting that. Can we trust anything Labour say????
Pigeon Watcher
Monday Apr 24, 00:04
Of course you can beleive everything Labour says, they always tell the truth! All Lib Dems eat babies, give heroin to their neighbours kids, encourage yobs to vandalise property. Didn't you know that? Well, if you didn't, you've obviously not been reading your local Labour Rose, have you boys and girls.
Thomas' Mate
Monday Apr 24, 00:07
Go on Tom. Why did you pretend not to know who was responsible for John Leech watch? You keep claiming that John Leech doesn't tell the truth. Well hello Mr Pot, my name's Mr Kettle!
Val Stevens Watch
Monday Apr 24, 00:12
Everybody's favourite Labour Cllr is up to her usual tricks of desperation to get re-elected. Her new plan is complain about Lib Dem candidate Charles Glover being incapable of reporting rubbish outside his house to the Council and then Val saves the day. What she doesn't realise is that he had reported the rubbish and got it removed. Instead she used an old photo of previous rubbish at the site and then claimed that she had got it removed. Good old Labour, you can always trust them to tell the truth!
Trade unionist
Monday Apr 24, 00:15
Heroin, I thought it was crack! And 2 any1 slagging off Frank u don't have a clue what your on about. He doesn't spin and has worked hard. The lib dems are just scared because their weakest candidate is up this time.
Pigeon watcher
Monday Apr 24, 00:21
Yes, Rod is is terrified that Frank is going to get his majority down under the 700 from last time, especially after saving the day on the pigeon poo!
Trade unionists united
Monday Apr 24, 02:03
You lot are just showing what a bunch of tossers you are. Thank go I don't have to work with any of you.
Alan
Monday Apr 24, 09:51
This site has suddenly seen alot of activity by people claming that myself and Thomas have been 'economical with the truth'. No one has ever asked me before whether or not i currently live in the constituency or not. Have I not answered your question? Could I not have easily lied and said yes I still live in Didsbury,who would have known.
I would suggest that either Mr Leech or his head of office are now contributing to this site. 'Alan's Mate' at what point have I said previously that I would be returning to the constituency, because the only time I remember ever saying that is in a personal email response to John Leech. If I had mentioned it on this site thenI'm quite sure that Peter Paxman would have picked it up alot earlier!
There is alot of talk about hiding the truth yet the main attackers can't even post their own names on the site, furthermore, how are they privy to information that was sent between myself and Mr Leech..... does he publish all letters and emails?
As for pigeon watcher, it was Labour that actioned the the nets and the Lib Dems took credit... not that I'm overly bothered who actioned it. I would suggest that tackling crime and improving education, NHS etc are far bigger achievements than dealng with pigeon shit.
On a last note I call for 'Alan's Mate' and 'Thomas' Mate' to identify themselves... or are they the same person.Have some balls and tell us who you are!
Trade unionists united
Monday Apr 24, 11:55
Lib dems have recently been taking credit for labour's use of dispersal orders so I don't think you lot are in any position to start preaching.
Maurice C
Monday Apr 24, 16:51
I’m a Lib Dem supporter and would like you all to note that John Leech and his Lib Dems have never said, never done, anything contradictory ever, nor are they anything but virtuous and full of integrity. It's all sour grapes. Yes it is.
You’d never find John and his councillors standing outside a hospital and whipping up bogus claims it was to close merely to garner public opinion. Not would John vote against Foundation Hospitals and then be pictured in the local rag ‘supporting Christie Hospital’s Foundation Trust’ status.
Nor would John and the Lib Dems endorse the opening of a Community Hospital they deemed to be a glorified outpatients clinic just 12 months prior. They wouldn’t support anti-social disposal orders in Didsbury when their MPs voted against such legislation in parliament.
Nor would the Lib Dems tell Joe Public that 24 hour licensing chaos was about the descend on Didsbury when, 18 months on, not one bar in South Manchester has a 24 hour licence.
The Lib Dems have never to voters that Withington Post Office was under the threat of closure and their MP then not being pictured beaming at the re-opening of the refurbished premises.
When Charles Glover was a councillor in Oldham he attended lots and lots of meetings and didn’t fall from grace, only to resurface as a ‘Chorlton resident.’
Oh, and John didn’t, at some time or other, support both Kennedy, Huhne, Oaten and Campbell for the leadership battle. And the Lib Dems had a very amicable selection procedure in Didsbury West where Dickie Clayton asked sitting Councillor Simon Wheale to stand aside and Simon leapt at the chance to stand in Withington.
Alan, in keeping with the spirit of liberalism and freedom of speech, please stop having your own opinions and keep outside a 20 mile radius of Manchester Withington.
Peter H - you are the voice of common sense. How could anybody disagree?
peter h
Monday Apr 24, 17:32
I've always enjoyed alan's contributions. He argues, listens and takes things on the chin.
But he has been passing himself off as a local resident. So there's been an underlying deception to his comments which suggests dirty tricks, but at least he's out of the closet now and we know where he stands (or doesnt).
As for you Maurice. My dad was called maurice. He was a pillock. Must be something about the name.
Oh and I like pigeons, and anything else which craps on people in Burnage (that's in south manchester, Alan). The nets probably just moved the bloody things to didsbury, where no doubt they'll vote labour because the Lib Dems evicted them from their nice little bridge.
Which means you'll have pigeons as well as sheep voting for Micky Mouse alan. Animal Farm all over again. Makes vivisection almost attractive.
Alan
Monday Apr 24, 18:49
Peter, no one has ever asked me whether or not I am currently a local resident therefore I have not deceived anyone. You asked and after dodging the question (which I don't class as deception) I answered you truthfully. Like I said, it would have been very easy for me to lie.
As for you Maurice, Peter (for a change) took the words right out of my mouth. I'm a clever guy (or so I like to think) and I can't figure out for the life of me what you're going on about.
On a last note, to all of you that think my no longer being a resident of Manchester Withington will stop me from arguing with Peter then you can think again. I have every right to post my views whether people like them or not... as for Burnage Peter, I am fully aware of where it is because I spent several days, during the election campaign delivering, delivering election materials.
Is my 'mate' going to reveal who he is because I think it's John Leech (which would be the most ironic instance I have ever come across)
Alan
Monday Apr 24, 19:51
On a completely unrelated topic, if of course I am allowed to know this being as I no longer live in the constituency, does anyone know who will be standing in the local elections for Didsbury West and East?
peter h
Monday Apr 24, 22:56
alan, just because nobody asked doesnt mean you didnt deceive. What about things on Reporter website signed "Alan Gormley, Didsbury"?
Actually you surprised me. I was just trying to check whether you really voted labour since so many of your views seemed anti-labour - unions, pensions, democracy and so on.
Still at least youre not some blind party mouthpiece.
In answer to your question I just voted (postally) and can't remember the candidate's name. Oh dear....None of them are exactly charismatic, except that UKIP nutter.
UNISON for a labour government
Monday Apr 24, 23:00
Didsbury East is Geoff Bridson for Labour, Didsbury West I know Si Wheale has had to step down. Check out the Manchester lib dems website.
I live in Gorton but can still comment on the fact that Leech's campaign team conducted themselves appaulingly. I say that because its true.
I know to lib dems integrity may b an alien concept!
Don't just critisise Leech. John Cameron deputy leader of the liberal democrats on the council was one of the worst offenders.
Maurice C
Tuesday Apr 25, 09:19
Alan
I'm on your side. I was sticking up for you above and beyond Peter's snide and quite tiresome remarkszzzzzzz.
Alan
Tuesday Apr 25, 11:38
LOL, Maurice I'm obviously not as clever as I like to think... please accept my apologies!!
Peter, when I posted those emails I was in Didsbury at the time.. again no deception. My philosophy in life is that if you don't get asked... don't tell. That isn't deceitful just sensible. Surely you've heard the phrase 'just make sure you don't get caught'. In this instance I have but I reject any suggestion that I have been deceitful.
As for the Didsbury East candidate... go Geoff Bridson!! Was very pleased to see that he is standing again..., what a legend. I hope he knocks the Lib Dem wasters side ways!!!
Furthermore, some of my views may be ant-Labour, there are some things that I don't agree with Labour on. If the day comes when the Tories talk more sense than Labour then I will vote for them. It's aboput ideas and progress not the blind following of a party because that's how you have always voted.
Maurice C
Tuesday Apr 25, 13:03
No problems, Alan. If Peter was Home Secretary you'd be whipped with celery sticks and covered in treacle. Probably.
Have you noticed this? The eight anti-Labour, anti-Tom, anti-Alan postings appeared within an hour on 23.04.06., just after the pubs had shut. All these messages are sequential. Of the eight, there's one from Peter.
Now, I don't want to give Juliet Bravo a run for her money but if I was looking for the author of the other 7 messages, I know who'd top my suspect list. hic...
Labourite
Tuesday Apr 25, 14:53
Geoff unfortunately doesn't have a chance of winning as it is a lib dem strong hold
Dave
Tuesday Apr 25, 16:36
This site was excellent when it first started, now it is just some commical farce!
Alan
Tuesday Apr 25, 17:41
I can't imaging Peter wasting his time posting 8 different messages Maurice. He usually posts messages late on. Peter isn't so bad, he's often wrong but he's alright!!
Shame about Geoff, he's a great guy, a real character who cares very much about is constituency. Party politics aside, local government needs more people like Geoff in it's ranks!
Maurice C
Tuesday Apr 25, 17:50
Alan - probably where we differ-you often think the best of people. Ok, we don't have fingerprints but the circumstantial evidence is strong.
Thomas
Tuesday Apr 25, 20:56
http://tgraham.org.uk/
Perhaps I can shed some light on the negative postings. They were posted by the IP address 194.70.181.1.
inetnum: 194.70.181.0 - 194.70.181.255
netname: MANCHESTERCITCL
descr: Manchester City Council
descr: Manchester M13
So interestingly, they were posted by someone who works for the council, or is a councillor.
I took a look through the database of comments to see who had already posted from that IP (in order of whent they were posted, oldest first):
"cllr keith whitmore"
"Thomas Graham"
"Graham Thomas"
"Lorenzo"
"Sally"
"Val"
"Val"
"Thomas' Mate"
"Alan's mate"
"Pigeon Watcher"
"Thomas Graham Watch"
"Pigeon Watcher"
"Thomas' Mate"
"Val Stevens Watch"
"Pigeon watcher"
Perhaps Mr Whitmore should spend a little more time working for people in Levenshulme, and a little less time posting rubbish on this website.
Thomas
Tuesday Apr 25, 21:06
Also interesting the comment about contacting Tony Parkinson. I wonder how you know that? I did ring Tony Parkinson to ask why I should vote for him, but didn't say I was a new voter - though of course this wouldn't really be wrong since I've never voted at a council election before.
Strange that you think I should ask my Lib Dem candidate what he is doing for me and my community, when nobody knows who he is. More people think that Geoff Bridson is their local councillor than have ever even heard of Tony Parkinson, and this is for a good reason.
Geoff Bridson is one of the most hard working people I know, he is involved in the parks, the rural studies centre, the schools, the civic society, supports the shop keepers in Didsbury Village and is actively involved in many other parts of the community. Geoff is always looking out for local people, wanting what is best for them. That is why I will be voting for Geoff Bridson, and why he deserves your vote.
Trade unionists united
Tuesday Apr 25, 22:35
The Levenshulme lot are obviously a bunch of idiots. Keith Whitmore, why don't you and John Commons get on with your job? Job - thats where you work for the local area instead of badmouthing other people. I know a positive campaign might be beyond the liberal democrats.
On a slightly nicer note I see local elections, so it gives me the greatest pleasure to wish the very best of luck to all the labour candidates but especially:
- Val Stevens in defending Chorlton
- Everyone in Old Moat
- Geoff in Didsbury
- The Burnage team - reduce the liberal majority and by 2008 we might be able to boot John Cameron out!!!!
You lot have got more integrity and more about you than John Leech and his crew could ever wish to have.
Do it for Keith and Manchester Labour.
All the best x x x
peter h
Tuesday Apr 25, 22:37
if maurice c is saying i post things under different names - no I don't. No point.
I wish you lot would stop screeching about supposedly underhanded tactics by lib dems.
I suspect all parties are as bad as each other on that score. And it is one of the things which turns people off politics. It's pathetic.
John didnt win votes through dodgy tactics. He won them by a mixture of sustained hard work and hard-won personal popularity at local level, plus a number of specific local issues where Labour shot themselves in the foot (withington hospital, local schools etc), plus strong anti-blair feelings on a national level.
Not through some poxy little leaflets that nobody but party activists on both sides read in the first place.
Unfortunately for you guys, labour is continuing to make itself look elitist and sleezy, so I doubt if things will get better for you in these elections.
Pity, because you deserve better than that locally, and a lot of good honest labour people must be boiling with anger over Iraq, NHS cockups, peerages for sale, corrupt spouses, presidential pretensions in downing street, dodgy loans and so forth.
Perhaps they should vote against labour to show their disgust, and get those idiots at the top to realise they don't own the country.
Which pretty well sums up why I, my wife, and a lot of our friends no longer vote labour, and why petty sniping at John Leech cuts no ice.
Compared to what Labour has done recently at national level, none of your complaints about perceived lib dem underhandedness can even begin to register.
Even you precious bloody cottage hospital on burton road is now in financial trouble because of the hare-brained artificial internal market policies youve introduced.
How on earth can you manage to sink billions into the NHS and STILL be perceived as wrecking it? I mean, who the hell costed all this? Mr Magoo? And which bright spark lets patricia hewitt within a million miles of a TV interviewer? patronising cow
Trade unionists united
Tuesday Apr 25, 23:17
John Leech didn't use underhand tactics:
- He didn't pretend Withington hospital was closing when it wasn't
- he didn't lie about Keith's voting record over the Iraq war
Integrity he probably couldn't even spell it. And as for Keith Whitmore posting on this site and stirring things up at election time.
Pathetic, lib dems all over.
Dave
Wednesday Apr 26, 09:00
Like Peter, I am ex-labour. What would be more productive of Labour MPs/Councillors and activists, is instead of concentrating on the failings of Lib Dems, why not concentrate on making your party more appealing to us ex supporters and to other voters (Tory, Lib Dem, Greens, BNP, UKip etc), I have some suggestions
1) Get rid of Tony Blair
2) Get rid of the vast majority of the front bench
3) Get some decent policies, that don't sound like they've been written by the tory party circa 1985!
I am open mineded, I can imgaine voting for Labour again, but not until they sound and act more like a centre-left socialist party, instead of centre-right conservative party!
Maurice C
Wednesday Apr 26, 11:16
Dave - I've just had a word with Tony and he says he's on to it.
Alan
Wednesday Apr 26, 19:09
Dave, it might be more useful if Lib Dem Councillors actually did their job instead of spending their time posting anonymous messages on this website when they should be looking after their constituents. It's time these lot got a back bone and used their real names!! Pathetic!!
Whitmore is a joke! By the way Peter, is he allowed to post on this site... or even have a view, afterall he doesn't use his real name and he doesn't live in the constituency!!!!!!?
Alan
Wednesday Apr 26, 19:10
p.s. Tony Blair is an absolute legend and the bst Prime Minister this country has ever had. He has vision, ambition and back bone which is just what this country needs. He shouldn't go, it's the archaic lefties that should go and make way for change and progress!
peter h
Wednesday Apr 26, 19:19
tony blair is now a liability, whether you like it or not. Power went to his head and he now sees himself as a great visionary leader with a place in history who will do what he thinks is right, irrespective of what the rest of the country thinks. It's the classic mindset of the dictator. He thinks he knows better than us
peter h
Wednesday Apr 26, 19:22
what on EARTH is trade unionists united talking about.
"- He didn't pretend Withington hospital was closing when it wasn't"
It did close, idiot! It's a block of flats now.
- he didn't lie about Keith's voting record over the Iraq war
Do you know KB record on Iraq? He voted against it once. THEN what did he do? Check your facts
Alan
Wednesday Apr 26, 19:25
I think you will find Keith Bradley's position was quite clear. He would support a war while it had UN backing - he voted for the war until there was no second resolution and then he voted against it.
Which is fair enough.
Alan
Wednesday Apr 26, 20:36
I didn't write the last comment it's another Alan but I do actually agree with him. So come on Peter aren't you going to have a go at Whitmore... you haven't answered my question!!!
peter h
Wednesday Apr 26, 21:37
stereo alans. Help!
never heard of whitmore,and I can't see why you guys are getting your knickers in a twist. petty politicking by any chance?
i take your point about kb on iraq voting, but at the time we felt he was being typically woolly on the issue, just like he had about other issues which mattered where we'd expect him as our mp to stand up and make a real noise. we always got the feeling his main concern was to save his own neck. Had he been properly outspoken, he'd probably still be an mp.
Alan
Wednesday Apr 26, 21:48
It's odd Peter, on the one hand you criticise me for being 'deceitful' and when it comes to one of your Lib Dem lackies being truly deceitful it is just petty politicking on our part. I find it very hard to believe that you have never heard of Councillor Keith Whitmore; I have and I don't even live in Manchester anymore Peter!!
How can you have a go at me and then have no opinion relating to the fact that a Lib Dem Councillor is using false names to contribute rubbbish to this site. The evidence is there. Personally I really don't care, if Whitmore wants to spend time, in his council offices!!!, posting rubbish on this website, but I do think that it is a bit hypocritical to chastise me and not an elected official.
As for Keith, believe what you like Peter, I helped in Keiths campaign and he is not like that. He wasn't in it to save his own neck, he was in it because he cared about his constituency.
Don't get me wrong I have always been very sceptical of politicians the old ' kissing babies' etc but Keith worked very hard throughout the week in London and back home in his constituency to address concerns and problems facing his constituents... I and many others who helped during the campaign saw that first hand!
peter h
Wednesday Apr 26, 22:34
no i've never heard of keith whitmore. The comments you attribute to him are in the same vein as comments you lot make about lib dems. same silly pettiness, whoever posted them. tweedle dum and tweedle dee.
I wish you'd all realise that this incessant sniping turns voters off politics. Theyre not interested . At the last residents association meeting there were representatives of labour and lib dem, and whilst the members were interested in debating local issues, the politicians were only interested in silly tit for tats. It's demeaning, irrelevant, childish, counter-productive, time wasting, BLOODY BORING.
As for Keith Bradley, sorry alan, but you have the evidence of the vote. Biggest anti-labour swing in England, and you guys are still in denial about why it happened, still trying to make out it was due to underhand tactics by Lib Dems, still denying that it was you lot that failed.
Trade unionists united
Thursday Apr 27, 00:25
Um in response to Peter I meant Christies hospital.
Keith voted against the war and wasn't a blarite.
He was a thoroughly decent person. Shame what he has been replaced with.
Dave
Thursday Apr 27, 16:44
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4949456.stm
John's in the news
Alan
Thursday Apr 27, 18:32
No doubt he'll find some way to blame it on Labour, that's all he's publicising it for... for his own potential gain.
peter h
Thursday Apr 27, 18:52
oh grow up, for gods sake.
I suppose this is what central office tells you to do? i just watched a labour party election broadcast. 5 minutes of rubbishing david cameron personally.
do you schmucks think this personal backstabbing works?
It told me nothing about labour party policies, not a damned thing. just childish jokes about david cameron.
and you wonder why nobody can be arsed to go out and vote?
all you lot can do is say yah boo john leech, yah boo keith whateverhis name was.
Alan
Thursday Apr 27, 21:17
If you knew anything about politics Peter then you would know that negative campaigning is a very powerful tool. John Leech used it and it got him elected!! I rest my case!
Thomas
Thursday Apr 27, 22:21
Perhaps the reason Labour is using negative campaigning is because nobody ever cares about the achievements that this Labour goverment has made since 1997. People just don't seem to realise how much has changed/improved since 1997. The achievements include:
1. Lowest inflation since the 60s
2. Low interest rates
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage
4. Record police numbers in England and Wales
5. Cut overall crime by 35 per cent
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools
7. Best-ever primary school results
8. Funding for every pupil in England to double (since 1997) by 2007-08
9. Lowest unemployment for 29 years
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries
11. 78,700 more nurses
12. 27,400 more doctors
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament
15. Devolved power to Welsh Assembly
16. Banned anti-personnel mines
17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice at any time
18. New Deal - helped over a million people into work
19. Local government funding has increased by a third in real terms
20. Equalised the age of consent for gay men
21. Free entry to all national museums and galleries
22. Overseas aid budget more than doubled
23. Restored city-wide government to London
24. Child benefit up 25 per cent since 1997
25. Created Sure Start to help children from low income households
26. Introduced the Disability Rights Commission
27. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & extra £100 for over-80s
28. The biggest rolling stock replacement programme ever seen on our railways
29. Negotiated the historic Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland
30. Over 30,000 more teachers in England schools
31. Implemented the Freedom of Information Act
32. All workers now have a right to 4 weeks’ paid holiday
33. Record rises in the state pension
34. 700,000 children lifted out of relative poverty
35. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents
36. Banned handguns
37. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent
38. Free nursery places for three and four-year-olds in England, Scotland and Wales
39. Free fruit for all four to six-year-olds at school
40. Free school milk for five, six and seven-year-olds in Wales
41. Record police numbers in Scotland
42. Implemented the Human Rights Act
43. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since the industrial revolution
44. Free TV licences for over-75s
45. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals
46. Halved maximum waiting times for NHS operations
47. Free local bus travel for over-60s
48. Record number of students in higher education
49. Extended the Race Relations Act so that all public bodies and functions now have a duty to promote race equality
50. Five, six and seven-year-olds in class sizes of 30 or less
peter h
Thursday Apr 27, 23:30
alan, you're talking bollocks. There's a difference between attacking goverment failures and cheap mudslinging.
Until you stop whinging and start arguing policies you'll get nowhere.
As for you thomas, youre wrong. People care more about what the government does and does not achieve than silly infighting amongst politicial activists. In the end , they care about having good hospitals, schools, jobs and so on and they'll vote for the party that they think most likely to deliver it.
So quit the negative campaigning and start saying WHY labour will do a better job. Negative campaigning appeals to nobody but small circles of political groupies. Real people can stand it.
And at least your list makes a stab at reminding people what Labour stands for, which is more than that stupid bloody party political broadcast tonight did - or £3000 a week for Cherie's hair did (that was your subs, Alan....)
would you care for a reply to your list of 50?
Thomas
Thursday Apr 27, 23:33
Alan, please do.
Thomas
Thursday Apr 27, 23:46
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747579822/qid=1146177817
Oops, I meant Peter H please do! From personal experience people don't want to hear that the waiting lists are down from 18 months to 18 weeks, or that they have a new school/hospital, more doctors, nurses and police on the street. I don't necessarily think negative campaigning is great, but sometimes it has to be used.
I suggest that you read the book by Polly Toynbee that I've linked to above - I'm happy to lend it to anyone interested. It is called "Better or Worse? Has Labour Delivered?"
Dave
Friday Apr 28, 08:46
Polly Toynbee is a champgaine socialist like most of New Labour, poor choice. That said Thomas, I do think the list is excellent. I was very proud to support Labour on issues such as gay equality, national minimum wages etc. However, one or two of the listed above, are a bit dubious. But more importantly, its the past few years that have let Labour down, GM crops trials, University Fees, and the Iraq War. Like I have stated before, and like Peter has also stated, what Labour needs to do, it to promote new ideas, not winge on about the opposition, the Tories are in a mess already, everyone knows that, so Labour are just wasting their time. The Lib Dems are not going to do much better at local or general elections than they have done. So quit the negativity Labour, and lets here some positives!
Alan
Friday Apr 28, 14:54
Peter, as a dedicated Blairite I am more than happy to contribute the the image enhancement of our first lady!! We're not in the 18th Century any more, we are in the media age... image is everything I don't care what you say.
peter h
Friday Apr 28, 15:15
Ooh alan, you sum it all up. Ex-military, basically a conservative. So, naturally, you are a dedicated blairite.
£270 a day for hair dos for the PMs wife, and you think it's money well spent...
Not the Grassroots alliance
Friday Apr 28, 15:22
So what if someones a blairite. Blair has done some good things. It would be rather boring if every1 was a blairie tho!
peter h
Friday Apr 28, 15:40
sorry thomas, but I can't agree at all. Negative campaigning is deeply damaging to politics.
Just look at the quality of some of the comments on your own website. Do you seriously think they do the labour cause any good? Infantile ignorant nonsense.
Do you not realise that they just make the author look like a prat, and his cause will look prattish too?
On the other hand, serious intelligent argument will win through every time.
look at the NHS "crisis" at the minute. Anybody using it knows that the NHS has improved drastically over the last few years.
A few people pick out some glitches - and that's all the deficits are , minor glitches. If you argue those things through seriously, you can show in 30 seconds that they're smallscale hiccups. But instead of calm reasoning, you get a mixture of name calling, patronising dismissals and panics, and you're stuffed.
These bloody spin doctors have caused havoc with "grooming" politicians on "presentation" and whatever.
They're spoonfed a series of pre-prepared answers, and they spout this crap instead of actually arguing their case, and they simply look evasive and childish and lose the argument.
You look at Dave "Chameleon" . Prescott was used to roadtest this little wheeze. People laughed, so now it's used daily to attack him. And it's SO boring.
And it replaces proper argument. If instead of endlessly repeating a cheap slogan they actually took him on head to head, they'd soon show him up for the lightweight that he is. Instead, they actually avoid the argument, so the tory message gets more credence than it deserves.
Alan
Saturday Apr 29, 13:47
Worrying times!! For all my name calling and ' childish/ prattish' behaviour, I actually agree with Peter Paxman for a change!!
Labourite
Saturday Apr 29, 17:16
The negative campaigning has definitely backfired. We've got so much to be proud of, why not shout about it?
peter h
Sunday Apr 30, 07:39
what the hell's this? Consensus?
I'll make another point too, an old cliche, if you like. Oppositions don't win elections. Governments lose them.
A very big slice of the votes that lost KB his seat were not pro-Lib-Dem, so much as anti-this government. A lot of people (me included) would have known relatively little of their policies , but perceived them as being more acceptable than Tories when registering a protest vote.
I was talking to a teacher last night and we were both reminiscing about the sense of elation we felt in 1997 when a viable labour government finally got elected, versus the sense of disillusionment now.
Like Thomas has shown, Labour has indeed done a lot of good things. So you should ask yourselves why you're losing the plot.
I can only speak for myself. For me it is a combination of the evil of taking our country to war under false pretences in support of an extreme rightwing US government (and you have to remember the protests of Vietnam to understand how violently my generation reacts to that) and the arrogance which permeates Tony Blair's inner circle vas they attempt to impose their vision of life on us as if they knew best and we are a bunch of kids.
Get rid of blair, stop being Bush's lapdog, discover some humility and humanity, and realise that the government is the people's servant, not its master, and you've cracked it.
fib demmer
Sunday Apr 30, 18:25
There was a lot of nonsense spoken about someone not being able to criticise two jobs leech because he did not live in the constituency so could not vote. Two jobs leech does not live in the ward he represents nor in the constituency he represents. Its good to see Christies Hospital is going from strength to strength - according to two jobs leech it should have been closed by now. And where is Metrolink - two jobs leech should have got it here by now.
peter h
Sunday Apr 30, 21:04
infantile little person. funny how the staff at christies and people at cancer research uk sided with john leech,ain't it? after all, what do we have to fear from labour with local nhs facilities , after the brilliant job they did with withington hospital, with the clinic replacing it already in £600 000 deficit due to idiotic financial planning, and the near impossibility of getting an NHS dentist? Why should we worry about what they were planning for christies eh, my little genius? Fib Dems, 2 jobs leech - wow! obviously fancy yourself as a wit! well, you're halfway there
Labourite
Sunday Apr 30, 22:21
2 jobs leech has quite a ring to it. Couldn't agree more about the disgraceful scaremongering that surrounded Christies Hospital. Same old lib dems anything to get elected.
The 'deficit' I think you'll find is due to the huge pay rise we've given to GPs and I wouldn't begrudge them a single penny of it. The NHS has got more money going into it than ever before. Just shows what years of tory underinvestment has done.
peter h
Sunday Apr 30, 23:41
The deficit is within the budget of the hospital on burton road and GPs are irrelevant to that.
It's the daft economics being used within the NHS that is causing it - same as the deficits elsewhere, the way in which they increased the salaries without costing them properly and so forth.
Don't get me wrong, they need to spend money on the NHS. We are still in a position where we only have half the GPs and consultants per capita compared to some other countries in Europe.
It's all very well not to begrudge doctors the money. But if you are now overpaying them by, for instance, 25%, that means we could have had 25% more doctors for the same money if Labour hadnt cocked up their figures. That is mismanagement. And , as you saw last week with Hewitt, the health care professionals seem to agree.
The NHS has improved under labour and labour ought to be its best custodians. But its a million miles away from where it should be. Try going and getting sick in france or germany or italy if you don't believe me, and see the difference.
You talk about "disgraceful scaremongering" by JL. So why did the doctors at Christies support John Leech's efforts?
Sorry, but your slur on him won't wash. The odds are that after john's campaign they didnt dare touch the hospital. I believe the guy, and nothing that labuor has said gives me any reason to doubt him. THe staff at Christies and the media have all said the same thing. All local labour seems to be able to offer to the contrary is petulant insults.
Labourite
Monday May 01, 00:26
Petulant insults, go and spend an afternoon with the lib dems, that'll put a whole new spin on things.
And while your at it, take a trip back to the 80s and get ill then in one of the closed hospitals. Or get ill in the US and have to remortage your house to pay for it.
And that is why I strongly believe that we still need Labour in power.
peter h
Monday May 01, 07:19
just like blair, you seem to forget we're part of europe , not USA. Compare our health service to france, 26 miles away. that's the true comparison, not some place 3000 miles away, even if new labour is hellbent on being USA'a poodle.
i strongly believe in labour too. Pity we aint got a labour government
Alan
Monday May 01, 15:15
Peter, of course the staff at Christie's were siding with John Leech, anyone would if they thought that their job was under threat... anyway, I'm sick of dicussing Christie's, the fact remains that Leech scaremongered the constituency with a bogus campaign, purely to satisfy his own political needs. You talk about how wrong negative campaigning is yet this was all Leech could manage. At no stage did I ever hear him talk of policies, of how he was going to make the community better. All his election leaflets just attacked Labour and 'Tony Blair's Man' without offering a sound alternative. You keep sticking up for Leech and his cronies but regardles of whether you agree with Labour or not, surely you must agree that Leech is a man without substance. He can talk the talk but he can't walk the walk!!
peter h
Monday May 01, 23:21
no of course he's not a man without substance. that's a daft statement whether you like him or not.
he has a long and honourable record of fighting for his constituents and getting involved day-to-day at councillor level.
that's where he proved himself and that is why he has such high personal popularity in this constituency.
And I DONT accept it was scaremongering over Christies. Local labour has history with hospital closures round here alan, and we don't trust 'em.
We would argue that his effective campaigning at a critical time forced the powers be back from tampering with christies. And the staff backed him because they knew what was being discussed. They would never have dated to touch it just close to the election with him breathing down their necks. He didi his job and didi it well.
Other than that, I agree completely - move on forwards. You can never prove they did not intend to mess with christies and I can never prove they did.
Sensible trade unions
Monday May 01, 23:50
Yeah, France go live there where you can't get a job even if you tried. Test out our fantastic unemployment record compared to theirs. Aint got a labour govnt yeah thats the one, minimum wage, civil partnerships, manchester changed beyond belief, those that can't afford it don't pay tuition fees. Yeah we don't have a labour govnt. Fool!
In massive agreemnt with Alan, Leech 2 jobs is an abhorrent amn with disgraceful man with no politics.
Yeah he fought for his constituents when he fought they may vote 4 him. Honourable, he couldn't even spell the word.
The man makes me sick
Andrew
Tuesday May 02, 10:18
To " sensible trade unions", also known as "Adele the Manchester Minger": lighten up love, are things not going your way in Fallowfield?! Have you even met or spoken to John Leech? It is arrogant Labour activists such as you who turn people off politics!
Steve James
Tuesday May 02, 13:16
I live in Chorlton and given recent headlines I was toying with switching my vote from Labour to the Lib dems. That was until I got a mail-merged letter from John Leech this weekend and his hollier-than-thou baloney about them being above personality politics/personal attacks.
What a load of bull...that's a key reason why John got elected by slagging Bradley off unmercilessly and unfairly.
Dunno who i'll vote for on thursday, or if I'll even bother, but either way it won't be for lib dems.
Alan
Tuesday May 02, 13:46
Andrew, I saw John Leech speak in Didsbury before the election, nothing meaningful to say and a terrible public speaker. I have also had email exchange with him, again nothing interesting to say.
Steve, you are right, all Leech did was slag KB off, again no policies and nothing to say... there seems to be a pattern emerging.
Furthermore, as previously mentioned John doesn't even live in the constituency!! Does he live in Chorlton.. NO yet he is MP and Cllr for that area but shock horror when someone from outside Manchester Withington comments on what a useless politician he is!!
Dave
Tuesday May 02, 15:24
I am a little stuck. IF (and it's a big IF at the moment) I don't vote for Norman Lewis, I guess my choice is Yogesh Virmani, who I met for the first time outside my local Late Shop at the weekend. She asked me who I normally vote for, and I stated Labour, she smiled, and then I said, "but last time I voted Lib Dem". She then walked away. I found that very rude and not very political. I thought potential politicians were supposed to engage us and convinces us?
Steve James
Tuesday May 02, 17:10
Point taken - Vote Tory!
peter h
Tuesday May 02, 17:35
alan, i was at that didsbury election meeting too - to listen to the candidates. at the time i hadnt decided who to vote for.
first, your description of john leech there is nonsense. He aquitted himself well, despite the amateurish heckling from an organized group of labour donkeys in the corner - no doubt you and your mates.
Your attempts to shout him down convinced me to vote for him, and to write to this website. congratulations. prats...
the most persuasive speaker there was neither keith nor john, but an independent - a local doctor who tore labour's NHS financing policies to shreds and showed clearly how labour can't be trusted with NHS. I would have voted for him if he'd been a proper candidate. he made fools of you and your silly christies tirade.
one day you and your mates will learn that such boorish behaviour harms your cause. I actually felt sorry for kb having such morons "supporting" him.
Alan
Tuesday May 02, 18:21
Peter, admitedly yes it was me heckling John Leech, I just couldn't help it, he was talking absolute crap.. whatsmore if you think that his was a display of good public speaking and sound policy then god help us.
Yes, perhaps my behaviour was childish but at the same time he did not give coherent answers to the questions asked of him about Christies. I could have done a better job at fabricating the truth than he did and he has had plenty of practice.
I agree the doctor was a good public speaker but he also had regrets after the election due to the fact that he had taken votes off Keith. He was, like yourself, essentially a Labour supporter with a chip on his shoulder.
On a last note, if you look at 'heckling' you will see that it's been going on for centuries and it is an unnoficial part of the political process.
Sensible Unions
Tuesday May 02, 20:48
Urm 2 Andrew I don't even live in Manchester. I just helped here during the election. I think its you that needs to get your facts straight and lighten up a bit.
peter h
Tuesday May 02, 22:16
yes alan I do believe he acquitted himself well. In fact I KNOW he did. I was there, without an axe to grind.
in fact I seem to remember KB ducking the christies issue, by using a classic debating tactics, which suggested to me he was very uncomfortable with it.
How on earth can you claim the doctor regretted taking votes off labour, when he specifically stood against a sitting labour MP in protest at labour policies? Come on !
some woolly thinking there, i think?
and I see another of your anti JL mates, Sensible Unions, isn't even from manchester.
this is getting rather silly.
peter h
Tuesday May 02, 23:31
and incidentally, mr or ms sensible trade unions, France may have its problems but the overall quality of life there is a damned sight better than here - and trade unions have a damned sight more power too, and employees more rights, shorter hours, better health care and better pensions. Not to mention the food and the weather.
and yesterday I was talking to yet another parent whose child won't complete university education because they can't afford it. In their case they had a degree but didnt dare go for higher degrees because of the cost and the debt. That's twice I've encountered that in the last 6 months. So don't rabbit on about no fees for those who can't afford it. It's bollocks.
Steve James
Wednesday May 03, 13:43
peter - what would be your solution for university finance/student fees then?
Alan
Wednesday May 03, 19:55
Peter would have hard working people who don't go to university footing the bill for those that want to go.
I've not long finished uni and if people think that these long established educational institutions are full of students who can't rub two pennies together then you're wrong. Ask students what they spend their student loan on, it's rent, beer and cigs. Why should people who don't go to uni have to pay for that. I think Peter wants to go back to the old style class system where the peasants pay for the King's wine (that incidentally was a metaphor and I wasn't liking those who haven't gone to uni as peasants)
To be perfectly honest, it's worked out I didn't need a degree anyway. I have started off at the bottom of a blue chip company (on the dreaded phones) and have worked damn hard to get a good job with a good salary (no degree needed).
As for France, how can you possibly claim that they have a better standard of living, half of them are still living as 18th Century farmers! The trade unions do seem to be stronger, you are right, look at the bloody nuisance they cause when French lorry drivers blockade the ports !!!!!!
Rant over... now back to finishing my work!
peter h
Wednesday May 03, 22:34
from the country's point of view, education is an investment, just like in plant and machinery. We invest in your education, and your increased abilities and earning power repay that investment.
you should be encouraging people to get as much education as they can.
the money will come back any way in the taxes that educated people pay over their lifetime.
statistically, graduates earn more than non-graduates and therefore pay more income tax, spend more money and pay more VAT etc, and they will lead more productive lives.
so the country makes a profit out of their efforts.
I'm from the same postwar generation as tony blair and many of the current labour cabinet. we were the first generation of ordinary people who could get a good education as long as we were bright enough to do so, without having to worry about money.
my father and mother were both clever, but they had to leave school at 13 to work because their families couldnt afford to educate them.
So they ended up in low paid dead end jobs.
The way things are going now, those who do go into tertiary education are being divided into the rich bastards whose parents pay for them, and the rest, who have to go into debt in order to get educated.
I object strongly to forcing young people into debt before their lives have even started. They deserve better than that.
And I object equally strongly to some kids being put off education for fear of debt - even if they do so out of misunderstanding.
Within my own group of acquaintances, I know of 2 kids whose parents dissuaded them from going to university because they were frightened of running up debts. I know of 3 graduates who abandoned offers of PHDs because they were already in too much debt from their Bscs and Mscs.
That is disgraceful. We have let them down, and we have shot ourselves in the foot by putting 1st class candidates off higher education.
Personally I think the current younger generation - including YOU Alan - are being conned.
You are being forced into debt if you wish to get a good education; you are being crippled by astronomical house prices; you are being coaxed into running up credit card debts.
The result is that you the most debt-laden generation which has ever existed. You have to work harder than any one else in Europe to cope with these debts; you are not paying enough into pensions to ensure an eventual retirement; you lose much of your freedom to choose how to pursue your lives because you are in debt before you start.
As a businessman I quite regularly come across people wanting to start their own businesses, but being afraid to do so because they have too much personal debt as described above, typically people in their 30s with bright ideas and ambitions, but struggling with mortgages, kids, other debts, forcing them to stay working for others, thus killing a lot of potential new enterprises.
When I was a kid in the 50s and 60s, I was able to get a 1st class school education for free and university education on 100% grant, so I left university with no debts, and was able to maximise my educational potential without worrying about the consequences financially. And yes, Alan, I did spend money in the pub. So what? It's part of growing up.
The banks would not lend me money because I had no assets. Therefore I lived within my means because I had no choice; building societies would only lend 2.5 times annual salary on mortgages, and you had to save 10% deposit also.
Therefore house prices reflected wages.
If building societies still did that, average house prices would probably be around £50 000 to £80 000.
All that has been swept away, and the only people who benefit are the banks, who now make astronomical profits because you have all been manoeuvred unwittingly into a level of debt which was unheard of 20 years ago. You've been conned. And this government has allowed it to happen.
Everybody says what a good chancellor Gordon Brown has been.
I don't buy that . He has allowed personal debt in this country to spiral out of control. He has allowed the banks to make monkeys of us.
My house cost £26000 in 1984. It is now "worth" £650 000. Exactly who does that benefit? Not me, because if I sell it, I have to buy somewhere else at an even higher price. It benefits the banks, because, in order to buy that house, somebody will have to borrow £650 000 instead of £30 000. So the bank's income has risen twentyfold in 20 years. And all along they've conned us into thinking we were getting richer because our house value was rising. A bare-faced deception against the british public.
Steve James
Thursday May 04, 09:13
Peter - thanks for the essay. As a set of ideals I respect some of your arguments. But it is fair to ask a working household in Burnage to subsidise the university education of just 44% of 18-21 year olds - especially as these graduates will go on to earn £150,000+ in their lifetimes than those without a degree.
The idea of graduate contribution/tax is fair (as a self-proclaimed socialist I'd have thought you'd have recognised that). The current repayment thresholds/level of debts are not universally fair.
Brown's idea to offer free A-Level equivalent education up to the age of 25, Education Maintenance Grants...even the most irrational of minds can't pretend these are not positive moves, especially as the work has to be concentrated at 16-18.
Dave
Thursday May 04, 10:15
As a graduate who can only ever dream of earning £150,00+ in my line of work. I think a better way is to have a graduate tax. An extra penny or two per pound would seem fair to pay if you went to Higher Education, once you earn over the average on a non-graduate (whatever that might be at the time)
Alan
Thursday May 04, 18:18
Peter, it's getting increasingly more difficult for me to disagree with you.. which is worrying.
As for students, I don't mean to get on my high horse, I was drinking and smoking (tobacco) with the rest of them but then I also worked full time so I could afford to.
peter h
Thursday May 04, 18:40
yes steve it is fair to ask a household in burnage to contribute, for several reasons:
1- it ensures that everybody - especially the poor - can go for as much education as they can handle. The better educated society is, the better it will be. Just look at the percentage of functional illiterates in prison.
2- it ensures that the staff in public services which the man in burnage needs will be trained to the highest level and he will therefore get better service.
2 - that graduate who goes and earns higher salary will also pay higher taxes and benefit everybody. I earn a lot of money, but I also paid £40 000 income tax in 2005, plus a lot of VAT, so the state's educational investment in me 30 years ago has paid off handsomely.
It is the same argument as saying "why should I pay taxes for hospitals I never use" or "public transport I never use". There are as number of essential public services which really should be provided free in a civilized country in ourder to ensure that all people can access them irrespective of their financial means.
Dave
Friday May 05, 10:13
All very good points Peter!
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.
