Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[Awol]

 

Awol, on 02 Oct 2013 - 2:21 PM, said:

The one that made me laugh was his conference announcement that Labour would force companies hiring a foreign worker to also hire a "British" youngster at the same time to be trained alongside them. Obviously didn't think it through very deeply as it was abandoned the following day for being against EU law. Not as good as knocking over 1 billion pounds off the stock market in a day with his energy price fixing announcement, or indeed promising that the State would seize lawfully held private property if its owners weren't doing what Labour wanted with it.

 

Mulitimillionaireband is a chimp and Labour are scum.*

 

 

 

*I don't actually mean that but seemingly it's the kind idiotic generalisation people post on politics threads these days.

 

 

Yeah I did comment on that one  .. needless to say a labour supporter defended it as a good idea 

 

It is a good idea. Maybe they can combine it with a promise to give the country a referendum on EU membership?

[tonyh29]

Naughty naughty

Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public. Separate emails suggest that Mike O'Brien, the former Labour minister of state for health, told the NHS watchdog that "anything you do is political" in the run up to the General Election. Executives at the watchdog decided that "given the political environment" a report into standards of care across the country should be "largely positive". The emails will increase pressure on Mr Burnham, who is now shadow health secretary, amid speculation that he is to be moved to a different portfolio in an imminent Labour reshuffle. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, refused to give his public backing to Mr Burnham at the Labour Party conference last month. The emails were obtained by Stephen Barclay, a Conservative MP, after a four months of repeated requests. He said: "Andy Burnham's position is untenable. Labour was playing politics with an organisation which is supposed to be overseeing patient safety and he CQC's failure to intervene meant that patients suffered appalling care. "You cannot muzzle an independent regulator so that bad news is either not made public or presented in a more favourable light." Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, there was evidence of a “cover up” by Labour. Last week he announced that Care Quality Commission will be given full independence to protect it from political interference. He said: ‘There is now a strong body of evidence that Labour Ministers leant on the hospital watchdog to cover up poor care, leaving hundreds of patients to suffer under a system that put political priorities first.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10354527/Labour-accused-of-cover-up-over-failing-hospitals.html Edited October 3, 2013 by tonyh29

[drat01]

Naughty naughty

 

Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public. Separate emails suggest that Mike O'Brien, the former Labour minister of state for health, told the NHS watchdog that "anything you do is political" in the run up to the General Election. Executives at the watchdog decided that "given the political environment" a report into standards of care across the country should be "largely positive". The emails will increase pressure on Mr Burnham, who is now shadow health secretary, amid speculation that he is to be moved to a different portfolio in an imminent Labour reshuffle. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, refused to give his public backing to Mr Burnham at the Labour Party conference last month. The emails were obtained by Stephen Barclay, a Conservative MP, after a four months of repeated requests. He said: "Andy Burnham's position is untenable. Labour was playing politics with an organisation which is supposed to be overseeing patient safety and he CQC's failure to intervene meant that patients suffered appalling care. "You cannot muzzle an independent regulator so that bad news is either not made public or presented in a more favourable light." Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, there was evidence of a “cover up” by Labour. Last week he announced that Care Quality Commission will be given full independence to protect it from political interference. He said: ‘There is now a strong body of evidence that Labour Ministers leant on the hospital watchdog to cover up poor care, leaving hundreds of patients to suffer under a system that put political priorities first.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10354527/Labour-accused-of-cover-up-over-failing-hospitals.html

 

Tony really? In other threads you have accused the story being nothing to do with the headline and the subject of the thread and then you post that. This is another part of the pre-election spin that will no doubt be oozing out in gallons in the coming months. As we have seen from the Mail, anti-Milliband vitriol and bile there seems little in the way of credibility to a lot of what is being written.

 

What the right wing media (and its supporters) need to do is try and create a shit storm to deflect away from the massive own goal they have scored recently and this is a perfect example of that.

 

As it says these are old allegations and no evidence has ever been found. If this was a new disclosure with new evidence of wrongdoing then fine let it be debated correctly, but really this is just desperation now. Maybe the old if we throw enough mud some of it will stick policy that is used by IDS for example is a common tactic now. 

[Awol]

 

As it says these are old allegations and no evidence has ever been found. If this was a new disclosure with new evidence of wrongdoing then fine let it be debated correctly, but really this is just desperation now.

 

 

Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public.

 

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"?

 

If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS.

[Awol]

What the right wing media (and its supporters) need to do is try and create a shit storm to deflect away from the massive own goal they have scored recently and this is a perfect example of that.

 

The article states that they have been trying to get these emails released under FOI for 4 months. It's a bit weak, in fact it's obviously wrong to try and suggest that this has something to do with Ralph Miliband and the dreaded right wing media.

[drat01]

 

What the right wing media (and its supporters) need to do is try and create a shit storm to deflect away from the massive own goal they have scored recently and this is a perfect example of that.

 

The article states that they have been trying to get these emails released under FOI for 4 months. It's a bit weak, in fact it's obviously wrong to try and suggest that this has something to do with Ralph Miliband and the dreaded right wing media.

 

As they say in all old comedy routines it's about ................... timing

[drat01]

 

 

As it says these are old allegations and no evidence has ever been found. If this was a new disclosure with new evidence of wrongdoing then fine let it be debated correctly, but really this is just desperation now.

 

 

 

 

Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public.

 

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"?

 

If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS.

 

A leading MP in the last Gvmt was "furious" - Hmmm that is the evidence for regurgitating what are old allegations?

[Awol]

 

 

 

As it says these are old allegations and no evidence has ever been found. If this was a new disclosure with new evidence of wrongdoing then fine let it be debated correctly, but really this is just desperation now.

 

 

 

 

Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public.

 

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"?

 

If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS.

 

A leading MP in the last Gvmt was "furious" - Hmmm that is the evidence for regurgitating what are old allegations?

 

I haven't seen the emails and neither have you. Therefore neither of us are in position to say whether they contain significant evidence of Burnham's complicity in cover up and intimidation or not. The Torygraph obviously seem to think so, let's see what comes out after this story. The age of the allegations are a moot point if any evidence has only just come to light.

[drat01]

 

I haven't seen the emails and neither have you. Therefore neither of us are in position to say whether they contain significant evidence of Burnham's complicity in cover up and intimidation or not. The Torygraph obviously seem to think so, let's see what comes out after this story. The age of the allegations are a moot point if any evidence has only just come to light.

 

If the Telegraph had seen them then I am sure they would have printed them, As said it's a convenient spin on an old story and the timing is key to everything here

[villaajax]

Keep shooting them down, Drat!

[drat01]

Ajax - hey despite what people may say and think, if there were any "cover up" then let it be shown up for all to see and debated fairly. All that has happened here as I see it, is that part of a ramping up of what will be a pretty dirty election campaign so it seems, the right wing supporters are now trying to throw bucket loads of mud and hope some of it sticks. As said if there is new evidence then I would have suspected that any one of the Telegraph, Mail, Express etc would have splashed them across the front pages with quotes of damnation from people like messers Hunt, Gove etc

 

All the Telegraph story has said as I read it is that there were some allegations a time back which were dismissed and never proven, new emails have shown that a minister of the time was "furious" and that is all there is. Now as said if there is more then let's get it out there for debate and scrutiny, but until then it's really quite poor and opportunistic reporting, IMO

[villaajax]

Exactly, desperate times call for desperate measures. The Tories are scared.

[drat01]

Exactly, desperate times call for desperate measures. The Tories are scared.

TBF I think the UK electorate should be scared the way that political electioneering (and that is across all parties) is going, but that is another subject completely

[tonyh29]

As it says these are old allegations and no evidence has ever been found. If this was a new disclosure with new evidence of wrongdoing then fine let it be debated correctly, but really this is just desperation now.

 

QuoteInternal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards. The dossier of emails, released under Freedom of Information, state that Andy Burnham, the then Health Secretary, was "furious" when "graphic details" of the care failings became public.

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"?If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS.

A leading MP in the last Gvmt was "furious" - Hmmm that is the evidence for regurgitating what are old allegations?

Unlike an article in the other thread that was dated from 2011 this is from yesterday's torygraph It states that he spent 4 months getting the info released. When Tom Watson did something similar he was held up as some form of hero Edited October 4, 2013 by tonyh29

[drat01]

Tony do us all a favour mate and read the other posts. Basically what you have written there has little / no relevance to the subject being debated

 

Do you not agree that the story actually shows nothing new?

Do you not agree that is the media had hold of what are damning emails then they would have printed them?

Do you not agree that the timing is how shall we say "convenient" given what has happened this week?

 

The reference to the article that someone else quoted from 2011 was debated at length in the other threads, along with the timing and it's current status - it has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to prove here. Agree?

 

And what Tom Watson has to do with this is beyond me, care to share?

Edited October 4, 2013 by drat01

[tonyh29]

Keep shooting them down, Drat!

In order to do that he needs to stop firing blanks

[drat01]

 

Keep shooting them down, Drat!

In order to do that he needs to stop firing blanks

 

Tony can you have a quick re read of Pete's post from yesterday and maybe change your post? - cheers

Edited October 4, 2013 by drat01

[colhint]

I'm just wondering why you would think timing is the issue. If this runs, and you think its trying to discredit Labour. Wouldn't it have been better to publish it 3 months before the General Election. 

[tonyh29]

drat01, on 04 Oct 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:drat01, on 04 Oct 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:Tony do us all a favour mate and read the other posts. Basically what you have written there has little / no relevance to the subject being debated

Do you not agree that the story actually shows nothing new?

Do you not agree that is the media had hold of what are damning emails then they would have printed them?

Do you not agree that the timing is how shall we say "convenient" given what has happened this week?

The reference to the article that someone else quoted from 2011 was debated at length in the other threads, along with the timing and it's current status - it has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to prove here. Agree?

And what Tom Watson has to do with this is beyond me, care to share?

Nothing new ? It's all new as it was denied previously and it's taken 4 months for the information to come to light

Interesting that other papers are now starting to run with it

Somehow I suspect Burnham may be spending more time with his family soon

The torygraph follow up with another interesting article

 

 

QuoteOver the coming months, Labour plans to mount a sustained assault on the Coalition over the NHS. As colder temperatures and seasonal illnesses send even more people through the doors of GP surgeries or (increasingly) A&E departments, Ed Miliband and his shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, will put on their most pious expressions, and accuse the Tories of single-handedly destroying one of Britain’s most cherished institutions.

To see why this narrative cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, consider our story today. In 2009, Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals Trust, one of 14 being investigated by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh over their excessive mortality rates, was in trouble. The Care Quality Commission, Labour’s newly created regulator, had been warned of filthy wards, dying patients – the familiar litany of disgrace. Although investigations were launched, the public were not told. It was only when a private firm, Dr Foster, seemed poised to blow the whistle that a press release was hurried out.

At which point, the Department of Health, under Mr Burnham, entered the fray. Not only did it try to block the announcement, but – according to emails obtained via the heroic persistence of Steve Barclay, a Tory MP – it informed the CQC that the secretary of state was “furious”. Shamefully, this was not because a hospital under his control had such appalling standards of care, but because the public had been allowed to find out. The sin was compounded a few months later when Mike O’Brien, one of Mr Burnham’s junior ministers, told the CQC that the imminent general election made the publication of its key report on the health and social care system a politically sensitive matter. To the discredit of those involved, the report duly appears to have been toned down.

There are two important conclusions from this shoddy saga. The first is that Labour’s claim to the moral high ground over the NHS is utterly specious. Indeed, we would suggest that Mr Burnham apologise to the public – if he still had the credibility to be believed. The second is that, to echo David Cameron, sunlight is the best disinfectant. This scandal only came to light because Dr Foster was able to gather its own data, rather than the CQC being the sole source of truth. To prevent further Basildons, or Mid-Staffordshires, patients must have access to every possible speck of data on performance, survival rates and so on, not just for hospitals or trusts but for individual wards and surgeons. Under Labour, the NHS’s failings were covered up for the convenience of the politicians. The Coalition must ensure that no government is able to do the same again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10353221/The-NHS-cover-up-will-tarnish-Labour-for-ever.html#

 

Edited October 4, 2013 by tonyh29

[drat01]

I'm just wondering why you would think timing is the issue. If this runs, and you think its trying to discredit Labour. Wouldn't it have been better to publish it 3 months before the General Election. 

I think I answered that before didn't I? Not sure why I have to repeat it but .....

 

There is obviously a pretty clear "mud slinging" type of campaign that is now starting from the Right wing media especially towards Labour. We have seen it grow this week, and I suspect that it will run as part of the election campaign which as you saw at the conferences has effectively started. This on the surface seems to be an extension of that - unless of course as said they produce further "evidence" which can then be debated