I see that the anti-Leech protagonists on this web site do - sort of! - acknowledge that his campaign didn't invent the concerns about the future of Christie, but that this all originated from a group of health professionals going to the press. Maybe the announcements since of further investment into the Christie do indicate that there is no threat. Time will tell. But I feel entitled to be sceptical about Labour's commitment to our local services. After all, Labour pledged to save Withington Hospital, and closed it when in power. Mr Bradley and his activists accused Lib Dems of scaremongering not so long ago, when we expressed doubts as to whether Metrolink would extend to Didsbury. In the end we didn't even get it into south Manchester at all - even we never suspected it would come to that! And all this against the national background: university tuition fees and national insurance contribution increases that weren't going to happen and then did; weapons of mass destruction that were there and then weren't; pledges to constitutional reform that fizzled out in an Upper House stocked with Tony's cronies; an "ethical foreign policy" that ended up with the ex-foreign secretary who had trumpeted it resigning from the government in disillusion over foreign policy! Should we be reassured? We'll see. But it might be worth recalling that the Chief Executive of the Manchester Health Authority during the period leading up to the closure of Withington Hospital was none other than: Dr Neil Goodwin. Labour activists seem to approve of debate and openness only when they drive it! Anything wrong with openness?! And does anyone seriously think that John Leech got in on the Christie issue alone?

Please supply an email address so we can contact you and give a brief explanation of why this comment violates the Terms Of Use:
Email Address:

Reason: