and you're right, the Tories mustn't forget that they are actually in power now, and the electorate won't ascribe all of the problems to the previous government.
Greetings from sunny Florida (well it is dark but you know what I mean). It is almost as hot as the UK. Just caught up on the ICM poll. Hilarious. And something that those wanting to criticise Crosby should reflect on, even although it was an outlier. After a fairly long period in the doldrums the tories seem to have some self belief, unity and cohesion back. Pretty impressive I would say.
These NHS stories are going to run and run. Privatisation is not on the agenda but no one in their right mind can believe the way the NHS was left in 2010 was the answer. The key to Crosby's success is to remind everyone that Labour 2005-2010 was the worst government ever. The more time Labour spends defending it the worse they will do. It's simple and it works. Talking about the failings of the NHS is a win, win, win for the tories unless they get carried away.
The Crosby approach was hardly a winner with Michael Howard in 2005. Remember a year before that election the Tories were on 40% with YouGov. This all evaporated and the Crosby campaign just encouraged the anti-Tory vote.
Mike is spot on to raise these questions. Aside from the 'war of Jennifer's ear' dangers all the attacks on Labour generates coverage of the NHS. The NHS isn't a strong topic for the Tories. It's all very Karl Rove. Attack your opponents greatest strength. Do you need to be British to tune into the Danny Boyle wave length on the NHS?
As the UKIP polling bounce fades and the Labour poll lead shrinks, I expect the focus to turn more and more onto Lynton Crosby as the next GE draws near. As a vital part of the Conservative GE campaign team, he is going to be feared and loathed in equal measure by their opponents. Crosby is no doubt prepared for the intense scrutiny he will receive, as well as the inevitable political attacks that will be aimed at him right up to the day of the GE. Reading this article indicates that it would be a mistake to underestimate Crosby, both Boris Johnson and Danny Finkelstein rate his abilities while Ken Livingston warned Ed Miliband about him.
"When the Conservatives lost the 2005 election, Crosby said he had come in too late: "You can't fatten a pig on market day," he said - but he left enough admirers here in Britain for Boris Johnson to recall him for the 2008 London mayoral campaign.
London is naturally a Labour city, so it took some political acumen to persuade voters to elect a Tory mayor two terms in a row.
Crosby imposed discipline on Johnson, demanding that he take himself more seriously, and concentrate not just on his pet projects, but on issues that voters actually cared about - and he did not shy from telling truth to power."
The Crosby approach was hardly a winner with Michael Howard in 2005. Remember a year before that election the Tories were on 40% with YouGov. This all evaporated and the Crosby campaign just encouraged the anti-Tory vote.
I agree that governments win elections Mike but to win them they need to have a consistent message, a level of confidence and a focus on their strengths with the barnacles off the boat (I love that metaphor, was there ever a better series for political geeks than the West Wing?). There is no question that Crosby is assisting in these necessary objectives. It is of course not all down to him but the improvement in tory fortunes has certainly been well correlated with his arrival.
A few months ago the tories were all over the place, rabbiting on pointlessly about Europe, picking fights with Liberals to show how "different" they were and going over the top on welfare. None of this has stopped completely but it is all better. Fewer backbenchers are also feeling the need to say stupid things either. This is unlikely to last but it is another good sign. And the economy slowly and inconsistently gets better...
"Labour accepted its findings it full, but said Mr Hunt's 'partisan' comments were 'not worthy' of the report, he added.
Mr Burnham said Mr Hunt's claims that this was Labour's fault did not have a 'shred of evidence' to back them up, claiming that many of the hospital trusts had been forced to cut staff.
As he spoke, many Labour MPs shouted 'smear' at Mr Hunt.
Mr Burnham turned to the Government frontbench in the Commons and added: 'You made unfounded claims that will have alarmed people in the areas served by the 14 hospitals and you have questioned the integrity of the staff working in those hospitals in difficult circumstances - all for your own self-serving political ends.
'That simply is unworthy of any responsible Government.
'On reading this review, the diversionary spin operation now makes sense because it reveals evidence of a deterioration at all 14 hospitals on your watch.'
But the Health Secretary accused Mr Burnham of 'shameful denials'.
'It's not party political to highlight poor care. It is doing the right thing for patients.
'You talk about spin. I will tell you who had to fight hardest - it was the whistle-blowers you tried to shut up.
'Let me say this - the best way to support the NHS is not to ignore poor care, not to muzzle the CQC (Care Quality Commission), not to ignore requests for public inquiries, to ignore constant warnings.'"
Crosby is becoming the story because that's the attack his opponents - who are nervous of his undoubted abilities - are making. It may be hard to conceptualise, but advisers who work on a contract to contract basis can split their thinking. He isn't paid by anyone else now and he will be offering disinterested advice about what he thinks is best for the Tories. To do anything else would be to risk his reputation and his future business. And he's not going to do that.
Wollaston is being to annoy me a little. There is clearly a public health question about smoking rates generally, and there should be attempts to either reduce the rates of smoking or to implement harm reduction strategies. But there are also very legtimate questions about IP, liberty, regulatory interference, etc. Back to Wollaston: she seems to slip very easily into a stance of moral superiority - fine for a doctor, but not what government (or MPs) should be about.
As for the NHS, it's clear that there were very significant failings in the delivery of care under the last government. These *must* be addressed - to ignore them would be disgraceful. There are clearly risks in a full frontal assault on Labour - but equally the Tories can't just cede the ground. Any talk of privatisation needs to be put to bed though - it's not policy, but just an attack by the defenders of vested interests. Sadly there are some backbench idiots who provide a convenient quote from time to time
(* decleration: my family has an interest in a fantastic harm reduction technology that is currently being reviewed by the regulators)
"Speaking on the Newsnight on Tuesday, Mr Hunt said: "Lynton Crosby's work is for the Conservative Party. He hasn't lobbied me and he hasn't lobbied the prime minister on issues to do with public health and there is a clear dividing line.
"There is also transparency. We are not hiding this fact."
Mr Hunt agreed that public health was a "whole area he [Mr Crosby] is not allowed to touch".
He added: "It is quite right he shouldn't because his company has clients in that area."
Mr Crosby's public affairs firm has been working with tobacco giant Philip Morris in the UK since November and Labour have questioned whether he influenced the decision to postpone the plans to bring in plain packaging.
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Hunt's comments represent the most emphatic denial yet of the accusation that Mr Crosby had influenced policy.
Mr Crosby has been seen as the driving force behind the prime minister's portrayal of Labour leader Ed Miliband as a weak leader and Labour has been keen to draw blood, our correspondent added."
The "let's make the NHS a Tory issue" policy is certainly being thoroughly tested by the Government and its supporting newspapers today - curious to see what effect it has.
To be fair to Crosby they didn't have much choice but to fight on this since the report was coming out anyway and gave the Tories problems, too. And it's better than his previous strategy of talking up right-wing issues that the Tories didn't really have solutions to, which was just feeding UKIP.
Even if it ends up boosting Labour short-term by raising the salience of the NHS, they're probably right to come out fighting and try to dent Labour's reputation.
But they'll probably be better moving onto firmer ground when the actual election comes around.
I am heartened that finally a government, any government, starts looking at these issues seriously. As I have said before I was a strong supporter of Labour on the NHS before but the scales fell from my eyes as I saw what the privatisation agenda, target culture and intimidating management culture was like under Labour. It was this and the Iraq war that caused me to quit the party.
I want the NHS to survive but it will do so only if it is providing quality care, and there is good evidence that it is failing to do so in these 14 Trusts. A worrying number are near us in the Midlands in Nuneaton, Burton, Mansfield and Lincolnshire. Surely you must have heard of some of these concerns?
Supporters of the NHS are doing it no favours by trying to paint this as a politically motivated attack on the NHS. Crosby did not create the Stafford scandal, it happened on new Labours watch. The coalition should perhaps have acted more quickly, but at least they have started.
The Daily Mail story is difficult to ignore with its individual cases. As Stalin said "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" I think that we will see a lot more individual stories now the focus is on these 14, as we did in Stafford.
In particlar I liked the points on junior doctors training and staff engagement being markers of quality of care. I know people who work in some of these hospitals and can believe the Keogh review as it matches their description of what is going wrong in parts of the NHS.
The "let's make the NHS a Tory issue" policy is certainly being thoroughly tested by the Government and its supporting newspapers today - curious to see what effect it has.
Labour's Crosby attacks are just Lord Ashcroft's Millions Mk II.
And I agree re Woollaston - I'm increasingly irritated by her moral superiority and ticking off bossiness about her pet subjects. She's popping up all over the place and seems to be revelling in the attention.
I'm all for independent minded MPs - but in my book we getting rather too much finger wagging from her.
And I think the Tories should hit Labour hard on the NHS - they've screwed it up.
When the shoe was on the other foot - as it was when the Tories had Black Wednesday, Labour used it to rubbish the Tories traditional reputation on the economy and it stuck for a long time.
If the Tories stick to 'we're on your side and putting patients first' - I don't see how that can harm them. Labour will put up a huge volume of diversionary chaff and scaremongering - but they've been doing that for decades and they've been found out big time.
Good post Mr Fox. It's ten years now since I left Basildon NHS Trust, but one of my memories is of being understaffed, and of consequent pressure.
One feature of the "semi-privatisation" does worry me; I used to hear tales of staff being discouraged from attanding conferences "because we don't want other Trusts stealing our good ideas"
Good post Mr Fox. It's ten years now since I left Basildon NHS Trust, but one of my memories is of being understaffed, and of consequent pressure.
One feature of the "semi-privatisation" does worry me; I used to hear tales of staff being discouraged from attanding conferences "because we don't want other Trusts stealing our good ideas"
But that culture exists everywhere - I've worked extensively across the Civil and Public Service and a wide variety of industries - its a cultural issue not a symptom of whether there are shareholders.
Cultures that are brimming with ideas and try new things want to share their initiatives/get recognition for them from their peers. Cultures fearful of competitors and their own managers are secretive and selfish [attending conference to steal ideas and pass off as their own].
"...Entirely absent from Mr Burnham’s self-justification – and those of the other Labour grandees who spoke in the Commons – was any acknowledgement of culpability. That is a grave shame. For Sir Bruce’s report was not a melodramatic potboiler, an anguished denunciation of callous doctors or unfeeling nurses. It was a meticulous examination of a system “trapped in mediocrity”. The problems varied from trust to trust: in one, inspectors stepped in when they noticed staff forced by rotas to work 12 days in a row; in another, they asked for the immediate closure of two operating theatres due to inadequate maintenance. Yet the common threads were plain to see – not least the inadequate leadership and neglected data that meant managers had no idea what was going wrong in their hospitals, and why. As a result, 11 of the 14 have been placed in “special measures”.
Despite Labour’s histrionics, Sir Bruce was explicit that the excess mortality in these trusts was unrelated to their level of funding, now or then. The trigger was that they failed to cope with added pressure on urgent and emergency services. This pressure was caused in large part by increasing numbers of elderly patients with complex problems – in short, by the demographic transformation that is set to put the NHS under extraordinary strain..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10182963/A-health-service-that-needs-special-measures.html
Bringing in an Australian right winger with associations to the drinks and tobacco industries to take on the NHS would seem brave.
It's not just the popularity of the service but the one million staff who have a considerably better 'doing their job well/badly' rating than the Tory Party.
The public wont be wondering which politician did what all they'll see is a full frontal attack by a Tory government on our most treasured institution.
On the whole I am a supporter of Wollaston but she is not being very effective in pushing the anti smoking agenda. The last govt did nothing on yhe packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
Labour's Crosby attacks are just Lord Ashcroft's Millions Mk II.
And I agree re Woollaston - I'm increasingly irritated by her moral superiority and ticking off bossiness about her pet subjects. She's popping up all over the place and seems to be revelling in the attention.
I'm all for independent minded MPs - but in my book we getting rather too much finger wagging from her.
And I think the Tories should hit Labour hard on the NHS - they've screwed it up.
When the shoe was on the other foot - as it was when the Tories had Black Wednesday, Labour used it to rubbish the Tories traditional reputation on the economy and it stuck for a long time.
If the Tories stick to 'we're on your side and putting patients first' - I don't see how that can harm them. Labour will put up a huge volume of diversionary chaff and scaremongering - but they've been doing that for decades and they've been found out big time.
I think it's a little harsh to blame this all on Labour. Absolutely they deserve blame for the systemic aspects of the problem, and certainly they turned a blind eye (at best) to the flashing amber lights.
That said the Tories really don't have a choice but to go hard. If they say nothing, over time, it will become "this was a disaster under the Tories" (regardless of the facts - you can see tim at it already 'things have got worse in the last 3 years...'). They need to establish the narrative that Labour screwed it up.
@DamianSurvation: If more MPs were like @drwollastonmp we'd see a serious shift in public percept'n of HoC. A true independent in politics motivated by belief
Than the view peddled by the servile spinners on here
I'm sure we would see a shift in perception.
It's just worth remembering that doctors have a specific worldview about certain issues.
A House full of doctors would be as bad as a House full or lawyers or bankers or SpAds.
You need a mix in order to be truly representative
I think a very telling couple of items are in the Mail. Nurses increased by 100 000 during '97 - 2010 but Managers doubled. GP's pay went from £ 44 000 to £ 104 000 in the same period. Now where did all that money go?
@DamianSurvation: If more MPs were like @drwollastonmp we'd see a serious shift in public percept'n of HoC. A true independent in politics motivated by belief
Than the view peddled by the servile spinners on here
Hmmm. If there's one party stuffed with sheep it's Labour. few of them speak out and those who do - Field, Skinner, Hoey - are quickly ostracised by the party machinery. What you mean tim is you want other parties to have independent thinkers while Labour ploughs the sterile filed of solidarity . Your party apparatchiks have not an original thought among them.
And so you end up with no new thoughts and parroting " I agree with Osborne "
"Parents and pupils have been warned that GCSE grades in core subjects may drop this summer for the second successive year. A series of technical changes is expected to converge in a way that could depress grades, according to the independent exams regulator.
Grades in English, in which pass rates dropped last year by 1.5 percentage points, are likely to be held down again by tougher checks on teachers’ marking. Exam boards have been instructed to use tougher grades for maths than previously while harder science GCSEs should push up grade thresholds by 1 or 2 per cent.
Ofqual, the regulator, fears a backlash from parents and teachers who think that last year’s drop in headline GCSE results, the first in 24 years, was a one-off driven by the row over English grades. Many teachers believe that their GCSE results will bounce back in August and they may not have grasped that Ofqual’s robust approach to policing standards may deliver another dip in key subjects. “This is what standard-setting looks like, based on some of the best practice in the world,” an Ofqual source said. “Results will move around. They can’t keep going up.”
@DamianSurvation: If more MPs were like @drwollastonmp we'd see a serious shift in public percept'n of HoC. A true independent in politics motivated by belief
Than the view peddled by the servile spinners on here
Hmmm. If there's one party stuffed with sheep it's Labour. few of them speak out and those who do - Field, Skinner, Hoey - are quickly ostracised by the party machinery. What you mean tim is you want other parties to have independent thinkers while Labour ploughs the sterile filed of solidarity . Your party apparatchiks have not an original thought among them.
And so you end up with no new thoughts and parroting " I agree with Osborne "
I'm in favour of the Coalition Agreement which promised to fund 200 open primaries in safe seats.
Are you?
Your party isn't. They like a contest between HQ imposed Lammfleisch and union automatons.
If you're that keen of free thought tim why not join a party which will give you choice ?
Arguing as Plato has been over the last several days that this is a catastrophe and is all Labour's fault comes unstuck because the service is still remarkably well thought of.
People will always back their own experiences to what they read in the newspapers so clearly most of their 60 million customers have had good experiences
Arguing as Plato has been over the last several days that this is a catastrophe and is all Labour's fault comes unstuck because the service is still remarkably well thought of. People will always back their own experiences to what they read in the newspapers so clearly most of their 60 million customers have had good experiences
ya think Roger ? My family's experience of the NHS isn't the most brilliant. I assume you don't use the service yourself.
Fair enough. But where was Labours policy on plain packaging? Indeed does it have one now?
Smoking is being gradually squeezed out of British life, with only UKIP advocating backsliding.
Personally I would not go for plain packaging, I would support a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products in the UK. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption.
On the whole I am a supporter of Wollaston but she is not being very effective in pushing the anti smoking agenda. The last govt did nothing on yhe packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
Not sure that the PB Tories attacking Sarah Wollaston simply because she supports Camerons position before he caved in to the tobacco lobby is wise.
Although its certainly in character looking at the last few days.
"The last govt did nothing on the packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors."
Surprising level of ignorance I'd expect from the 13,000 deaths peddlers.
When do you think the legislation on cigarette displays was passed?
On the whole I am a supporter of Wollaston but she is not being very effective in pushing the anti smoking agenda. The last govt did nothing on yhe packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
Not sure that the PB Tories attacking Sarah Wollaston simply because she supports Camerons position before he caved in to the tobacco lobby is wise.
Although its certainly in character looking at the last few days.
Can't help feeling that you're overcompensating for your previous allegiance. I remember the issue of tightening access to cigarettes very well - it was passed by the last government (I remember voting for it) against considerable criticism from the right - interference with business, penalising small shops, nanny state, etc. It's eccentric that you now credit it to the Conservatives!
The EU did consider a joint policy on this but couldn't reach a consensus view, so decided to leave it to individual countries to explore mechanisms, while explicitly ruling out any legal challenge over it if they did.
On the whole I am a supporter of Wollaston but she is not being very effective in pushing the anti smoking agenda. The last govt did nothing on yhe packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
Not sure that the PB Tories attacking Sarah Wollaston simply because she supports Camerons position before he caved in to the tobacco lobby is wise.
Although its certainly in character looking at the last few days.
"The last govt did nothing on the packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors."
Surprising level of ignorance I'd expect from the 13,000 deaths peddlers.
When do you think the legislation on cigarette displays was passed?
Health Act 2009
So Labour passed the legislation but did nothing to implement it. Of course this was nothing to do with any representations from any interested party. Much more likely that they just wanted to pass legislation so they could say they were doing something. Cos that's so much better.
Comments from one interested party in March 2011:
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) described the measures as 'a victory for public health'.
BHF spokeswoman Betty McBride said: 'The coalition Government has been under enormous pressure from a tobacco industry hell-bent on derailing important legislation banning tobacco displays in shops.
'Today is a victory for health campaigners and show of strength from Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.'
The stuff about tobacco and alcohol is just straight forward politics. At a time when people are under financial pressure they're not going to appreciate a government lecturing them and making it more expensive and harder to do things they enjoy.
@DamianSurvation: If more MPs were like @drwollastonmp we'd see a serious shift in public percept'n of HoC. A true independent in politics motivated by belief
Than the view peddled by the servile spinners on here
I'm sure we would see a shift in perception.
It's just worth remembering that doctors have a specific worldview about certain issues.
A House full of doctors would be as bad as a House full or lawyers or bankers or SpAds.
You need a mix in order to be truly representative
The point relates to her independence not her profession.
MODERATED
I made the original point.
It was about her moralistic tone and her specific view on the topic (reflecting her background as a doctor).
the Australian has since supplanted the Chancellor as the driving force of the Tory campaign. “He thinks that George has many skills but couldn’t strategise his way out of a paper bag,” says a friend.
Fair enough. But where was Labours policy on plain packaging? Indeed does it have one now?
Smoking is being gradually squeezed out of British life, with only UKIP advocating backsliding.
Personally I would not go for plain packaging, I would support a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products in the UK. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption.
On the whole I am a supporter of Wollaston but she is not being very effective in pushing the anti smoking agenda. The last govt did nothing on yhe packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
Not sure that the PB Tories attacking Sarah Wollaston simply because she supports Camerons position before he caved in to the tobacco lobby is wise.
Although its certainly in character looking at the last few days.
"The last govt did nothing on the packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors."
Surprising level of ignorance I'd expect from the 13,000 deaths peddlers.
When do you think the legislation on cigarette displays was passed?
In my view this is the future of smoking - drug-standard regulated nicotine delivery systems. Allows smokers to participate in the ritual of smoking without the nasty side effects (like cancer).
Strange, I was under the impression that it was a policy supported by the EU but it was felt to be too 'intrusive'. So they piloted the scheme in Ireland with cash sweeteners to support the change in law. When mass social unrest didn't happen, it was rolled out in the rest of Europe. Of course, with what's happened in the Eurozone recently, we've seen what the Eurocrats now think about social unrest away from the core!
I got it wrong on when the bill was passed, but it was implemented by the coalition, who have now promised to look at the evidence on plain packaging. I suspect that this evidence cannot be far off as the ban is now six months old in Australia and there must be records of what has happened to sales.
We are getting away from the point though. The excess deaths in these failing Trusts is not due to tobacco packaging. It is due to ineffective hospital management, and a concentration on targets over quality of care.
On the whole I am a supporter of Wollaston but she is not being very effective in pushing the anti smoking agenda. The last govt did nothing on yhe packaging issue, and this govt has significantly tightened aspects. The cigarette counter at my supermarket is now behind locked doors.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
Not sure that the PB Tories attacking Sarah Wollaston simply because she supports Camerons position before he caved in to the tobacco lobby is wise.
Although its certainly in character looking at the last few days.
Can't help feeling that you're overcompensating for your previous allegiance. I remember the issue of tightening access to cigarettes very well - it was passed by the last government (I remember voting for it) against considerable criticism from the right - interference with business, penalising small shops, nanny state, etc. It's eccentric that you now credit it to the Conservatives!
The EU did consider a joint policy on this but couldn't reach a consensus view, so decided to leave it to individual countries to explore mechanisms, while explicitly ruling out any legal challenge over it if they did.
The Wollaston discussion is interesting - trying to be non-partisan about it, I remember feeling the same about some extremely independent-minded Labour people as Tories here are starting to feel about her - yes, yes, we like the general idea of people with different trains of thought, but not when they go on about it and make a nuisance of themselves.
But if we have open primaries we'll have lots of people like that, often with strongly-felt agendas that don't fit comfortably with anyone else - for instance, Frank Field believes passionately in universal benefits and opposes means-testing (because it introduces poverty traps - as your income rises, you lose benefits and are not much better off), which is a position held by almost nobody else these days because it would be so expensive to make all benefits available to everyone. On a particular issue, this fits nicely with one party or another, but over time he disagrees with all of us. Would it be good to have 200 MPs like that, or would it sow confusion?
On topic, Lynton Crosby is marshalling the Conservatives into an effective attacking machine. The detail of what they are attacking Labour about isn't half as important as the general impression that Labour are being duffed up and simply not very good fighters. And our host notes the importance of giving Conservatives their confidence back.
The election is certainly not going to be won by the Conservatives on the NHS. But there are nearly two years to go to the election, and provided the Conservatives are disciplined enough to engage in a short period of tarnishing the opposition's brand and then moving on, this will have been a worthwhile endeavour.
I wonder when the Conservatives are going to find something that went egregiously wrong in the Department of the Environment between 2008 and 2010.
The Tories pipped Labour on the NHS around the time of the last election. This was the result of years of MRSA etc.
It did also require Cameron's fang-hiding [act / deeply held conviction] but it shows it's possible if there are genuine serious problems and the Tories can hold back.
I think it largely depends on whether an MP is being 'independently minded' or appears to be actively undermining their own side/leadership such as Nadine.
Take Douglas Carswell - he's got his own hobby-horses, but I've not detected the same level of irritation with him except from very loyal Tories who suggest he joins UKIP in moments of exasperation.
All parties have their characters - and the gaiety of the HoC increased by it, Ms Woollaston's pet subjects includes a lot of finger wagging which isn't necessarily very attractive to many of us.
The Wollaston discussion is interesting - trying to be non-partisan about it, I remember feeling the same about some extremely independent-minded Labour people as Tories here are starting to feel about her - yes, yes, we like the general idea of people with different trains of thought, but not when they go on about it and make a nuisance of themselves.
But if we have open primaries we'll have lots of people like that, often with strongly-felt agendas that don't fit comfortably with anyone else - for instance, Frank Field believes passionately in universal benefits and opposes means-testing (because it introduces poverty traps - as your income rises, you lose benefits and are not much better off), which is a position held by almost nobody else these days because it would be so expensive to make all benefits available to everyone. On a particular issue, this fits nicely with one party or another, but over time he disagrees with all of us. Would it be good to have 200 MPs like that, or would it sow confusion?
Strange, I was under the impression that it was a policy supported by the EU but it was felt to be too 'intrusive'. So they piloted the scheme in Ireland with cash sweeteners to support the change in law. When mass social unrest didn't happen, it was rolled out in the rest of Europe. Of course, with what's happened in the Eurozone recently, we've seen what the Eurocrats now think about social unrest away from the core!
Not so. I translated the Commission document on the subject myself. The EU is basically neutral on plain packaging. I'd imagine that if half a dozen countries try it, they'll have another look.
Fox: Labour policy is to favour plain packaging. I'm sure you're right that ideally smoking should just disappear, but it's not practical policy (mass smuggling for a start - 20% of fags are already imported IIRC), so squeezing it out step by step is the only workable approach.
On hospitals: nobody serious feels that evidence of poor care should be ignored. But most Tories here are pretty open about the partisan agenda as exemplified by today's Mail and Times - they think it necessary or deserved or whatever, but they don't pretend that Hunt and Cameron are seriously pursuing a neutral agenda. I don't actually think anyone is treating the NHS neutrally at the moment, but the Conservatives are ambiguous about the whole concept, vitiating their position on each individual controversy as it comes along.
and you're right, the Tories mustn't forget that they are actually in power now, and the electorate won't ascribe all of the problems to the previous government.
But what if the current problems partly result from the same things? For example a nepotistic caste who think student politics is the best training for public sector administration?
The link between some Tory MP's and companies who do well out of a privatised NHS is a campaign story that will run and run.
The Tories need to get the idea of privatising the NHS out of their head. It isn't going to happen.
The EU want to privatize the NHS hence why New Labour was trying to do it on the sly. It is true that the Tories need to hide they want to privatize the NHS if they want all this mud to stick properly.
Two things I've noticed since Mr Crosby got stuck in are that Tory MPs have turned their ire onto Labour rather than indulging in a pity party of infighting and that when they do attack its with a consistent message. Not a parroted line or two, but all talking the meme-de-jour.
This is even trickling into Twitter which was a much underused media by them until recently. Labour has been well ahead for ages, but the Back Boris campaign made a lot of social media and its clearly part of Lynton's strategy now.
On topic, Lynton Crosby is marshalling the Conservatives into an effective attacking machine. The detail of what they are attacking Labour about isn't half as important as the general impression that Labour are being duffed up and simply not very good fighters. And our host notes the importance of giving Conservatives their confidence back.
The election is certainly not going to be won by the Conservatives on the NHS. But there are nearly two years to go to the election, and provided the Conservatives are disciplined enough to engage in a short period of tarnishing the opposition's brand and then moving on, this will have been a worthwhile endeavour.
I wonder when the Conservatives are going to find something that went egregiously wrong in the Department of the Environment between 2008 and 2010.
The NHS is a socialist creation, and the Labour party continues to benefit itself by association with it. While the NHS exists in approximately its current format, the tories will never be given credit for improving it.
The Smithson theory is that any and all mentions of the NHS helps Labour, partly because they make enthusiasm for it almost a religion. Does this have to continue for ever and ever? As more and more evidence is produced of its structural ineffeciences, maybe Labour's lead on health care will diminish. However, it will not disappear.
If the NHS' troubles could be made to hurt Labour, without benefitting the tories, is it too fanciful to suppose that might help other parties?
I think it largely depends on whether an MP is being 'independently minded' or appears to be actively undermining their own side/leadership such as Nadine.
Take Douglas Carswell - he's got his own hobby-horses, but I've not detected the same level of irritation with him except from very loyal Tories who suggest he joins UKIP in moments of exasperation.
All parties have their characters - and the gaiety of the HoC increased by it, Ms Woollaston's pet subjects includes a lot of finger wagging which isn't necessarily very attractive to many of us.
The Wollaston discussion is interesting - trying to be non-partisan about it, I remember feeling the same about some extremely independent-minded Labour people as Tories here are starting to feel about her - yes, yes, we like the general idea of people with different trains of thought, but not when they go on about it and make a nuisance of themselves.
But if we have open primaries we'll have lots of people like that, often with strongly-felt agendas that don't fit comfortably with anyone else - for instance, Frank Field believes passionately in universal benefits and opposes means-testing (because it introduces poverty traps - as your income rises, you lose benefits and are not much better off), which is a position held by almost nobody else these days because it would be so expensive to make all benefits available to everyone. On a particular issue, this fits nicely with one party or another, but over time he disagrees with all of us. Would it be good to have 200 MPs like that, or would it sow confusion?
Re nagging. La Woolaston probably suffers from being a doctor; when you spend all your life telling people off for not doing this or that. If she was a bank manager she'd be wagging her finger that we're not all saving enough and are spending too much money ( or that her bonus wasn't big enough ). It makes the point that we need balance in Parliament rather than a collection of bothering middle class do-gooders.
"ya think Roger ? My family's experience of the NHS isn't the most brilliant. I assume you don't use the service yourself."
Actually I do. I'm also with BUPA but recently have had to use the NHS because BUPA didn't have the specialist service.
And I'm now a convert. It's completely different to the service of years ago. They phone me to discuss convenient appointments and even text me. The only essential difference between them and BUBA is we don't discuss things in the cafe-and there's no complimentary Daily Mail.*
The change in the NHS from what it was in the 80's is comparable to that of BA when they got computers and someone in New york could book you a flight from Dublin to Paris at Midnight.
(*And the multiple checks to see if you are who you're supposed to be and the disclaimers in triplicate)
Of course the tea party tories are right about the NHS. ;^ ) They were certainly proved right over the Lansley debacle weren't they? That's why Lansley is still safe as houses as the Health Secretary as they so wisely predicted.
"ya think Roger ? My family's experience of the NHS isn't the most brilliant. I assume you don't use the service yourself."
Actually I do. I'm also with BUPA but recently have had to use the NHS because BUPA didn't have the specialist service.
And I'm now a convert. It's completely different to the service of years ago. They phone me to discuss convenient appointments and even text me. The only essential difference between them and BUBA is we don't discuss things in the cafe-and there's no complimentary Daily Mail.*
The change in the NHS from what it was in the 80's is comparable to that of BA when they got computers and someone in New york could book you a flight from Dublin to Paris at Midnight.
(*And the multiple checks to see if you are who you're supposed to be and the disclaimers in triplicate)
Roger you're confusing the french service with the NHS ;-)
I think it largely depends on whether an MP is being 'independently minded' or appears to be actively undermining their own side/leadership such as Nadine.
Take Douglas Carswell - he's got his own hobby-horses, but I've not detected the same level of irritation with him except from very loyal Tories who suggest he joins UKIP in moments of exasperation.
All parties have their characters - and the gaiety of the HoC increased by it, Ms Woollaston's pet subjects includes a lot of finger wagging which isn't necessarily very attractive to many of us.
The Wollaston discussion is interesting - trying to be non-partisan about it, I remember feeling the same about some extremely independent-minded Labour people as Tories here are starting to feel about her - yes, yes, we like the general idea of people with different trains of thought, but not when they go on about it and make a nuisance of themselves.
But if we have open primaries we'll have lots of people like that, often with strongly-felt agendas that don't fit comfortably with anyone else - for instance, Frank Field believes passionately in universal benefits and opposes means-testing (because it introduces poverty traps - as your income rises, you lose benefits and are not much better off), which is a position held by almost nobody else these days because it would be so expensive to make all benefits available to everyone. On a particular issue, this fits nicely with one party or another, but over time he disagrees with all of us. Would it be good to have 200 MPs like that, or would it sow confusion?
Re nagging. La Woolaston probably suffers from being a doctor; when you spend all your life telling people off for not doing this or that. If she was a bank manager she'd be wagging her finger that we're not all saving enough and are spending too much money ( or that her bonus wasn't big enough ). It makes the point that we need balance in Parliament rather than a collection of bothering middle class do-gooders.
My nightmare scenario would be a HoC full of NGOers...
The Crosby approach was hardly a winner with Michael Howard in 2005. Remember a year before that election the Tories were on 40% with YouGov. This all evaporated and the Crosby campaign just encouraged the anti-Tory vote.
I think you rather forget that Crosby and Osbrowne were behind the master strategy of banging on about Europe and immigration before the local elections and Eastleigh.
Who was left looking stupid after that? Not the master strategists obviously.
That tory MPs have seemingly finally stopped running about like headless chickens over Europe and the kippers is neither here nor there as the swivel-eyed loons will tell you.
Mere coincidence that NF and the kippers fading seems to be helping the tories in the polling.
"ya think Roger ? My family's experience of the NHS isn't the most brilliant. I assume you don't use the service yourself."
Actually I do. I'm also with BUPA but recently have had to use the NHS because BUPA didn't have the specialist service.
And I'm now a convert. It's completely different to the service of years ago. They phone me to discuss convenient appointments and even text me. The only essential difference between them and BUBA is we don't discuss things in the cafe-and there's no complimentary Daily Mail.*
The change in the NHS from what it was in the 80's is comparable to that of BA when they got computers and someone in New york could book you a flight from Dublin to Paris at Midnight.
(*And the multiple checks to see if you are who you're supposed to be and the disclaimers in triplicate)
As someone brought up on the NHS being " the envy of the world " , I'm to this day upset by the low opinion continental europeans have of it. Italians frequently praise the French health model , never the UK's.
I think it largely depends on whether an MP is being 'independently minded' or appears to be actively undermining their own side/leadership such as Nadine.
Take Douglas Carswell - he's got his own hobby-horses, but I've not detected the same level of irritation with him except from very loyal Tories who suggest he joins UKIP in moments of exasperation.
All parties have their characters - and the gaiety of the HoC increased by it, Ms Woollaston's pet subjects includes a lot of finger wagging which isn't necessarily very attractive to many of us.
The Wollaston discussion is interesting - trying to be non-partisan about it, I remember feeling the same about some extremely independent-minded Labour people as Tories here are starting to feel about her - yes, yes, we like the general idea of people with different trains of thought, but not when they go on about it and make a nuisance of themselves.
But if we have open primaries we'll have lots of people like that, often with strongly-felt agendas that don't fit comfortably with anyone else - for instance, Frank Field believes passionately in universal benefits and opposes means-testing (because it introduces poverty traps - as your income rises, you lose benefits and are not much better off), which is a position held by almost nobody else these days because it would be so expensive to make all benefits available to everyone. On a particular issue, this fits nicely with one party or another, but over time he disagrees with all of us. Would it be good to have 200 MPs like that, or would it sow confusion?
Re nagging. La Woolaston probably suffers from being a doctor; when you spend all your life telling people off for not doing this or that. If she was a bank manager she'd be wagging her finger that we're not all saving enough and are spending too much money ( or that her bonus wasn't big enough ). It makes the point that we need balance in Parliament rather than a collection of bothering middle class do-gooders.
My nightmare scenario would be a HoC full of NGOers...
Mine would be one full of Oxford PPE ers ....... oh wait.
If the NHS became less of a political football - it'd be good for all of us. It's sacred cow status led to a great deal of rot which is only now coming to light.
If Labour's default advantage was reduced - it may float all boats and allow a wider discussion re what needs to be done.
We can't go on as we are - demographics alone won't let it happen.
The NHS is a socialist creation, and the Labour party continues to benefit itself by association with it. While the NHS exists in approximately its current format, the tories will never be given credit for improving it.
The Smithson theory is that any and all mentions of the NHS helps Labour, partly because they make enthusiasm for it almost a religion. Does this have to continue for ever and ever? As more and more evidence is produced of its structural ineffeciences, maybe Labour's lead on health care will diminish. However, it will not disappear.
If the NHS' troubles could be made to hurt Labour, without benefitting the tories, is it too fanciful to suppose that might help other parties?
"ya think Roger ? My family's experience of the NHS isn't the most brilliant. I assume you don't use the service yourself."
Actually I do. I'm also with BUPA but recently have had to use the NHS because BUPA didn't have the specialist service.
And I'm now a convert. It's completely different to the service of years ago. They phone me to discuss convenient appointments and even text me. The only essential difference between them and BUBA is we don't discuss things in the cafe-and there's no complimentary Daily Mail.*
The change in the NHS from what it was in the 80's is comparable to that of BA when they got computers and someone in New york could book you a flight from Dublin to Paris at Midnight.
(*And the multiple checks to see if you are who you're supposed to be and the disclaimers in triplicate)
As someone brought up on the NHS being " the envy of the world " , I'm to this day upset by the low opinion continental europeans have of it. Italians frequently praise the French health model , never the UK's.
And the french will charge them to use it, just shows people never appreciate something for free.
"We don’t need to rehearse the oodles of polling about how doctors are perceived in comparison with politicians or even worse paid political operatives like Mr Crosby. "
Certainly not.
If Woollaston's views are not in line with CCHQ's then she is clearly a bothersome nuisance and the inept tory spinners are right to be upset over her.
You seem to forget that "serial labour voters" and tea party tories are the most trusted of all. (aside from tabloid newspapers of course) ;^ )
Alan, you obviously did not read the whole story , always a mistake to go with just the header , especially in the Scotsman who are always bashing the SNP. When you read the article it is completely different. His speech was very sensible and thruthful , many small countries have better credit ratings than UK and therefore it is possible that Scotland if run properly could also do teh same.
Mr. G, don't we have AA or AAA depending upon which ratings agency you look at? I thought AAA was only held by a very small number of countries following numerous downgrades in recent years.
(Also, further evidence that any decent future for this country is based on science and technology while the cheap labour option is simply a one-way trip to nowhere.)
Mr. G, don't we have AA or AAA depending upon which ratings agency you look at? I thought AAA was only held by a very small number of countries following numerous downgrades in recent years.
Morris the UK has AA , there are small countries with better ratings. In fact the IoM has a AAA, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden , Switzerland. All small countries all well run. It may never happen but above shows there is no impediment to Scotland not being able to do the same on its own given a decent government with good fiscal policies. Given Westminster has to follow what is suitable for London and the south east , Scotland will never prosper whilst in the union but has a chance outside it.
Alan, you obviously did not read the whole story , always a mistake to go with just the header , especially in the Scotsman who are always bashing the SNP. When you read the article it is completely different. His speech was very sensible and thruthful , many small countries have better credit ratings than UK and therefore it is possible that Scotland if run properly could also do teh same.
Actually malc I did, and the Salmond ramping is just plain daft. The UK is AA rated and the best Scotland could hope for in the short to medium term is the same. Odds are it would be one notch lower since the ratings agencies are a risk averse bunch and would want to see a track history first before moving Scotland upwards. Salmond is just making himself look ridiculous with bombastic claims. The current Indyref debate is between one lot who claim the Scotland will go back to the Stone Age and another who claim it will be like everyone's had a major lottery win and no-one will ever have to work again. Guff the whole lot of it.
Mr. G, aren't all those countries outside of the eurozone or any other monetary union?
It's also worth mentioning that whilst I'm sure there'll be an earnest debate about specific numbers a theoretically independent Scotland would have a fairly large debt and deficit as it takes its share from the UK upon separation.
Good post Mr Fox. It's ten years now since I left Basildon NHS Trust, but one of my memories is of being understaffed, and of consequent pressure.
One feature of the "semi-privatisation" does worry me; I used to hear tales of staff being discouraged from attanding conferences "because we don't want other Trusts stealing our good ideas"
But that culture exists everywhere - I've worked extensively across the Civil and Public Service and a wide variety of industries - its a cultural issue not a symptom of whether there are shareholders.
Cultures that are brimming with ideas and try new things want to share their initiatives/get recognition for them from their peers. Cultures fearful of competitors and their own managers are secretive and selfish [attending conference to steal ideas and pass off as their own].
@Plato: Sorry to be late with this response , but I've been proof-reading technical reports for the last four+ hours.
You raise a very good point, how should we motivate and reward hard workers and those with initiative in the public sector?
I have worked mostly in the private sector and my brief spells in and with the public sector have left me very frustrated and taking a rapid exit.
In the private sector, as well as bonuses for company/group/personal performance, there is the freedom to raise their pay and benefit scale without promoting them up the management tree. For instance your best researcher may not be a good manager, does not want to be a manager and you want that person to keep producing new ideas/products/processes.
In the public sector, we have seen outcry when certain parts of the public sector have received a bonus - though it may not have been related to good performance.
It probably requires adopting a lot of the ethos, flexibility and efficiency of the private sector - without of course having the facility to opt out of any market sector - to change the thought process and practices of the public sector. What processes could be put in place to motivate those with initiative and hard work that would not cause a strike?
Mr. G, don't we have AA or AAA depending upon which ratings agency you look at? I thought AAA was only held by a very small number of countries following numerous downgrades in recent years.
Morris the UK has AA , there are small countries with better ratings. In fact the IoM has a AAA, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden , Switzerland. All small countries all well run. It may never happen but above shows there is no impediment to Scotland not being able to do the same on its own given a decent government with good fiscal policies. Given Westminster has to follow what is suitable for London and the south east , Scotland will never prosper whilst in the union but has a chance outside it.
malc the reasons these small countries have AAA is they don't have eejits spending all their wealth. Scotland has and in spadefuls. A Holyrood election campaign is about who can spend fastest. Have you ever heard SLab or SNP says they'll cut back and save money ? No it's all about who can piss it higher up the wall. So stop looking at Norway and Switzerland and benchmark Greece and Ireland. Or get new politicians.
"Number 10 is right to point out that overall, the number of clinical staff has gone up since the general election. There are 8,446 more “full-time equivalent” staff.
What’s also happened is that the mix has changed. There are 5,368 more doctors and 4,137 fewer nurses.
Mr Burnham argued that the drop in nurse numbers is behind the failings in NHS care.
As FactCheck has said before – without wanting to play down the importance of qualified nurses, essentially Labour is seizing on the only part of the clinical workforce where there has been a significant cut."
Alan, you obviously did not read the whole story , always a mistake to go with just the header , especially in the Scotsman who are always bashing the SNP. When you read the article it is completely different. His speech was very sensible and thruthful , many small countries have better credit ratings than UK and therefore it is possible that Scotland if run properly could also do teh same.
Actually malc I did, and the Salmond ramping is just plain daft. The UK is AA rated and the best Scotland could hope for in the short to medium term is the same. Odds are it would be one notch lower since the ratings agencies are a risk averse bunch and would want to see a track history first before moving Scotland upwards. Salmond is just making himself look ridiculous with bombastic claims. The current Indyref debate is between one lot who claim the Scotland will go back to the Stone Age and another who claim it will be like everyone's had a major lottery win and no-one will ever have to work again. Guff the whole lot of it.
Alan, it will be little different initially , the world will not end. It will take a long long time to build Scotland up but that is no reason to stick with a basket case. There can be no logical reason to continue to be run by London , it does Scotland no favours and we cannot possibly be any worse making our own decisions.
Not all of them would have been smoking dope and shagging Greens. Some of them would have been doing dangerous stuff.
And ???
It's another example, as if we needed further examples, of an organization putting itself and its reputation above the interests of those they serve.
Can the reputation of the Met sink any lower. One hopes not but I fear so.
"And ???" so if you're talking about demanding a list of names in 24 hours without any filtering then i'd have thought you'd be talking about potentially getting people killed.
There can be no logical reason to continue to be run by London , it does Scotland no favours and we cannot possibly be any worse making our own decisions.
Mr. G, aren't all those countries outside of the eurozone or any other monetary union?
It's also worth mentioning that whilst I'm sure there'll be an earnest debate about specific numbers a theoretically independent Scotland would have a fairly large debt and deficit as it takes its share from the UK upon separation.
Morris , absolutely no different to we have now and at present have no say in changing that fact, I defy anyone to give me a positive case as to why it is good to give your neighbour all your money and ask them to tell you what it should be spent on and decide what pocket money you get. I dare anyone to give a reasoned argument and not the usual bollocks about bigger market, smooth out volatility. In the union we are close to bankrupt , we have no way of changing policy and it cannot be any worse to be deciding our own destiny.
I defy anyone to give me a positive case as to why it is good to give your neighbour all your money and ask them to tell you what it should be spent on and decide what pocket money you get.
Mr. G, don't we have AA or AAA depending upon which ratings agency you look at? I thought AAA was only held by a very small number of countries following numerous downgrades in recent years.
Morris the UK has AA , there are small countries with better ratings. In fact the IoM has a AAA, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden , Switzerland. All small countries all well run. It may never happen but above shows there is no impediment to Scotland not being able to do the same on its own given a decent government with good fiscal policies. Given Westminster has to follow what is suitable for London and the south east , Scotland will never prosper whilst in the union but has a chance outside it.
malc the reasons these small countries have AAA is they don't have eejits spending all their wealth. Scotland has and in spadefuls. A Holyrood election campaign is about who can spend fastest. Have you ever heard SLab or SNP says they'll cut back and save money ? No it's all about who can piss it higher up the wall. So stop looking at Norway and Switzerland and benchmark Greece and Ireland. Or get new politicians.
Alan, totally agree , but they will get their day of reckoning and have to adopt to fiscal reality , I doubt rUK will be desperate to get them back if they make a hash of it and if they do it will give people on here a chance to whinge about all the immigration to England from a foreign country , demanding they learn English before they are allowed to claim benefits.
Mr. G, but if you leave then either you have a currency union or not. If you do, that means you'll suffer fiscal constraints from the UK (an ironic postmodern form of independence) or the EU (similar, except without the historic links). If not, then Salmond's failed.
The pocket money argument makes sense if you see Scottish and British as mutually exclusive. A great many Scots do not, however.
Comments
and you're right, the Tories mustn't forget that they are actually in power now, and the electorate won't ascribe all of the problems to the previous government.
Just caught up on the ICM poll. Hilarious. And something that those wanting to criticise Crosby should reflect on, even although it was an outlier. After a fairly long period in the doldrums the tories seem to have some self belief, unity and cohesion back. Pretty impressive I would say.
These NHS stories are going to run and run. Privatisation is not on the agenda but no one in their right mind can believe the way the NHS was left in 2010 was the answer. The key to Crosby's success is to remind everyone that Labour 2005-2010 was the worst government ever. The more time Labour spends defending it the worse they will do. It's simple and it works. Talking about the failings of the NHS is a win, win, win for the tories unless they get carried away.
The Crosby approach was hardly a winner with Michael Howard in 2005. Remember a year before that election the Tories were on 40% with YouGov. This all evaporated and the Crosby campaign just encouraged the anti-Tory vote.
Governments lose elections - oppositions don't win them.
BBC - Lynton Crosby: Can he win the next election for David Cameron?
"When the Conservatives lost the 2005 election, Crosby said he had come in too late: "You can't fatten a pig on market day," he said - but he left enough admirers here in Britain for Boris Johnson to recall him for the 2008 London mayoral campaign.
London is naturally a Labour city, so it took some political acumen to persuade voters to elect a Tory mayor two terms in a row.
Crosby imposed discipline on Johnson, demanding that he take himself more seriously, and concentrate not just on his pet projects, but on issues that voters actually cared about - and he did not shy from telling truth to power."
A few months ago the tories were all over the place, rabbiting on pointlessly about Europe, picking fights with Liberals to show how "different" they were and going over the top on welfare. None of this has stopped completely but it is all better. Fewer backbenchers are also feeling the need to say stupid things either. This is unlikely to last but it is another good sign. And the economy slowly and inconsistently gets better...
"Labour accepted its findings it full, but said Mr Hunt's 'partisan' comments were 'not worthy' of the report, he added.
Mr Burnham said Mr Hunt's claims that this was Labour's fault did not have a 'shred of evidence' to back them up, claiming that many of the hospital trusts had been forced to cut staff.
As he spoke, many Labour MPs shouted 'smear' at Mr Hunt.
Mr Burnham turned to the Government frontbench in the Commons and added: 'You made unfounded claims that will have alarmed people in the areas served by the 14 hospitals and you have questioned the integrity of the staff working in those hospitals in difficult circumstances - all for your own self-serving political ends.
'That simply is unworthy of any responsible Government.
'On reading this review, the diversionary spin operation now makes sense because it reveals evidence of a deterioration at all 14 hospitals on your watch.'
But the Health Secretary accused Mr Burnham of 'shameful denials'.
'It's not party political to highlight poor care. It is doing the right thing for patients.
'You talk about spin. I will tell you who had to fight hardest - it was the whistle-blowers you tried to shut up.
'Let me say this - the best way to support the NHS is not to ignore poor care, not to muzzle the CQC (Care Quality Commission), not to ignore requests for public inquiries, to ignore constant warnings.'"
Crosby is becoming the story because that's the attack his opponents - who are nervous of his undoubted abilities - are making. It may be hard to conceptualise, but advisers who work on a contract to contract basis can split their thinking. He isn't paid by anyone else now and he will be offering disinterested advice about what he thinks is best for the Tories. To do anything else would be to risk his reputation and his future business. And he's not going to do that.
Wollaston is being to annoy me a little. There is clearly a public health question about smoking rates generally, and there should be attempts to either reduce the rates of smoking or to implement harm reduction strategies. But there are also very legtimate questions about IP, liberty, regulatory interference, etc. Back to Wollaston: she seems to slip very easily into a stance of moral superiority - fine for a doctor, but not what government (or MPs) should be about.
As for the NHS, it's clear that there were very significant failings in the delivery of care under the last government. These *must* be addressed - to ignore them would be disgraceful. There are clearly risks in a full frontal assault on Labour - but equally the Tories can't just cede the ground. Any talk of privatisation needs to be put to bed though - it's not policy, but just an attack by the defenders of vested interests. Sadly there are some backbench idiots who provide a convenient quote from time to time
(* decleration: my family has an interest in a fantastic harm reduction technology that is currently being reviewed by the regulators)
"Speaking on the Newsnight on Tuesday, Mr Hunt said: "Lynton Crosby's work is for the Conservative Party. He hasn't lobbied me and he hasn't lobbied the prime minister on issues to do with public health and there is a clear dividing line.
"There is also transparency. We are not hiding this fact."
Mr Hunt agreed that public health was a "whole area he [Mr Crosby] is not allowed to touch".
He added: "It is quite right he shouldn't because his company has clients in that area."
Mr Crosby's public affairs firm has been working with tobacco giant Philip Morris in the UK since November and Labour have questioned whether he influenced the decision to postpone the plans to bring in plain packaging.
BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Hunt's comments represent the most emphatic denial yet of the accusation that Mr Crosby had influenced policy.
Mr Crosby has been seen as the driving force behind the prime minister's portrayal of Labour leader Ed Miliband as a weak leader and Labour has been keen to draw blood, our correspondent added."
No interesting subsidiary movements.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/17/update-labour-lead-6/
Even if it ends up boosting Labour short-term by raising the salience of the NHS, they're probably right to come out fighting and try to dent Labour's reputation.
But they'll probably be better moving onto firmer ground when the actual election comes around.
The Telegraph @Telegraph 1m
Today's Matt cartoon, on the NHS care crisis... http://fw.to/UO2LKbK
Crosby has succeeded in places where there is preferential voting. Not sure he has enjoyed as much success under FPTP.
I am heartened that finally a government, any government, starts looking at these issues seriously. As I have said before I was a strong supporter of Labour on the NHS before but the scales fell from my eyes as I saw what the privatisation agenda, target culture and intimidating management culture was like under Labour. It was this and the Iraq war that caused me to quit the party.
I want the NHS to survive but it will do so only if it is providing quality care, and there is good evidence that it is failing to do so in these 14 Trusts. A worrying number are near us in the Midlands in Nuneaton, Burton, Mansfield and Lincolnshire. Surely you must have heard of some of these concerns?
Supporters of the NHS are doing it no favours by trying to paint this as a politically motivated attack on the NHS. Crosby did not create the Stafford scandal, it happened on new Labours watch. The coalition should perhaps have acted more quickly, but at least they have started.
The Daily Mail story is difficult to ignore with its individual cases. As Stalin said "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" I think that we will see a lot more individual stories now the focus is on these 14, as we did in Stafford.
In particlar I liked the points on junior doctors training and staff engagement being markers of quality of care. I know people who work in some of these hospitals and can believe the Keogh review as it matches their description of what is going wrong in parts of the NHS.
And I agree re Woollaston - I'm increasingly irritated by her moral superiority and ticking off bossiness about her pet subjects. She's popping up all over the place and seems to be revelling in the attention.
I'm all for independent minded MPs - but in my book we getting rather too much finger wagging from her.
And I think the Tories should hit Labour hard on the NHS - they've screwed it up.
When the shoe was on the other foot - as it was when the Tories had Black Wednesday, Labour used it to rubbish the Tories traditional reputation on the economy and it stuck for a long time.
If the Tories stick to 'we're on your side and putting patients first' - I don't see how that can harm them. Labour will put up a huge volume of diversionary chaff and scaremongering - but they've been doing that for decades and they've been found out big time.
One feature of the "semi-privatisation" does worry me; I used to hear tales of staff being discouraged from attanding conferences "because we don't want other Trusts stealing our good ideas"
Cultures that are brimming with ideas and try new things want to share their initiatives/get recognition for them from their peers. Cultures fearful of competitors and their own managers are secretive and selfish [attending conference to steal ideas and pass off as their own].
"...Entirely absent from Mr Burnham’s self-justification – and those of the other Labour grandees who spoke in the Commons – was any acknowledgement of culpability. That is a grave shame. For Sir Bruce’s report was not a melodramatic potboiler, an anguished denunciation of callous doctors or unfeeling nurses. It was a meticulous examination of a system “trapped in mediocrity”. The problems varied from trust to trust: in one, inspectors stepped in when they noticed staff forced by rotas to work 12 days in a row; in another, they asked for the immediate closure of two operating theatres due to inadequate maintenance. Yet the common threads were plain to see – not least the inadequate leadership and neglected data that meant managers had no idea what was going wrong in their hospitals, and why. As a result, 11 of the 14 have been placed in “special measures”.
Despite Labour’s histrionics, Sir Bruce was explicit that the excess mortality in these trusts was unrelated to their level of funding, now or then. The trigger was that they failed to cope with added pressure on urgent and emergency services. This pressure was caused in large part by increasing numbers of elderly patients with complex problems – in short, by the demographic transformation that is set to put the NHS under extraordinary strain..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10182963/A-health-service-that-needs-special-measures.html
It's not just the popularity of the service but the one million staff who have a considerably better 'doing their job well/badly' rating than the Tory Party.
The public wont be wondering which politician did what all they'll see is a full frontal attack by a Tory government on our most treasured institution.
She would be more effective on this issue when some evaluation of the Australian policy has taken place, and some of the other issues resolved. This may be an issue better tackled by European law, rather than national law.
That said the Tories really don't have a choice but to go hard. If they say nothing, over time, it will become "this was a disaster under the Tories" (regardless of the facts - you can see tim at it already 'things have got worse in the last 3 years...'). They need to establish the narrative that Labour screwed it up.
It's just worth remembering that doctors have a specific worldview about certain issues.
A House full of doctors would be as bad as a House full or lawyers or bankers or SpAds.
You need a mix in order to be truly representative
And so you end up with no new thoughts and parroting " I agree with Osborne "
"Parents and pupils have been warned that GCSE grades in core subjects may drop this summer for the second successive year. A series of technical changes is expected to converge in a way that could depress grades, according to the independent exams regulator.
Grades in English, in which pass rates dropped last year by 1.5 percentage points, are likely to be held down again by tougher checks on teachers’ marking. Exam boards have been instructed to use tougher grades for maths than previously while harder science GCSEs should push up grade thresholds by 1 or 2 per cent.
Ofqual, the regulator, fears a backlash from parents and teachers who think that last year’s drop in headline GCSE results, the first in 24 years, was a one-off driven by the row over English grades. Many teachers believe that their GCSE results will bounce back in August and they may not have grasped that Ofqual’s robust approach to policing standards may deliver another dip in key subjects. “This is what standard-setting looks like, based on some of the best practice in the world,” an Ofqual source said. “Results will move around. They can’t keep going up.”
If you're that keen of free thought tim why not join a party which will give you choice ?
People will always back their own experiences to what they read in the newspapers so clearly most of their 60 million customers have had good experiences
Smoking is being gradually squeezed out of British life, with only UKIP advocating backsliding.
Personally I would not go for plain packaging, I would support a complete ban on the sale of tobacco products in the UK. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption.
The EU did consider a joint policy on this but couldn't reach a consensus view, so decided to leave it to individual countries to explore mechanisms, while explicitly ruling out any legal challenge over it if they did.
Comments from one interested party in March 2011:
The British Heart Foundation (BHF) described the measures as 'a victory for public health'.
BHF spokeswoman Betty McBride said: 'The coalition Government has been under enormous pressure from a tobacco industry hell-bent on derailing important legislation banning tobacco displays in shops.
'Today is a victory for health campaigners and show of strength from Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1364453/Government-bans-cigarette-displays-shops-April.html#ixzz2ZHWX6Df3
It was about her moralistic tone and her specific view on the topic (reflecting her background as a doctor).
the Australian has since supplanted the Chancellor as the driving force of the Tory campaign. “He thinks that George has many skills but couldn’t strategise his way out of a paper bag,” says a friend.
from Iain Martin DT.
http://www.kindconsumer.com/category/media/
In my view this is the future of smoking - drug-standard regulated nicotine delivery systems. Allows smokers to participate in the ritual of smoking without the nasty side effects (like cancer).
Strange, I was under the impression that it was a policy supported by the EU but it was felt to be too 'intrusive'. So they piloted the scheme in Ireland with cash sweeteners to support the change in law. When mass social unrest didn't happen, it was rolled out in the rest of Europe. Of course, with what's happened in the Eurozone recently, we've seen what the Eurocrats now think about social unrest away from the core!
We are getting away from the point though. The excess deaths in these failing Trusts is not due to tobacco packaging. It is due to ineffective hospital management, and a concentration on targets over quality of care.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2013/07/16/20002-20130716ARTFIG00546-reforme-de-l-etatayrault-marie-impots-et-economies.php
But if we have open primaries we'll have lots of people like that, often with strongly-felt agendas that don't fit comfortably with anyone else - for instance, Frank Field believes passionately in universal benefits and opposes means-testing (because it introduces poverty traps - as your income rises, you lose benefits and are not much better off), which is a position held by almost nobody else these days because it would be so expensive to make all benefits available to everyone. On a particular issue, this fits nicely with one party or another, but over time he disagrees with all of us. Would it be good to have 200 MPs like that, or would it sow confusion?
The election is certainly not going to be won by the Conservatives on the NHS. But there are nearly two years to go to the election, and provided the Conservatives are disciplined enough to engage in a short period of tarnishing the opposition's brand and then moving on, this will have been a worthwhile endeavour.
I wonder when the Conservatives are going to find something that went egregiously wrong in the Department of the Environment between 2008 and 2010.
"The Tories can never win on the NHS.."
The Tories pipped Labour on the NHS around the time of the last election. This was the result of years of MRSA etc.
It did also require Cameron's fang-hiding [act / deeply held conviction] but it shows it's possible if there are genuine serious problems and the Tories can hold back.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independent-scotland-credit-equal-to-switzerland-1-3003207
What next a bigger industrial base than China ?
Take Douglas Carswell - he's got his own hobby-horses, but I've not detected the same level of irritation with him except from very loyal Tories who suggest he joins UKIP in moments of exasperation.
All parties have their characters - and the gaiety of the HoC increased by it, Ms Woollaston's pet subjects includes a lot of finger wagging which isn't necessarily very attractive to many of us.
Fox: Labour policy is to favour plain packaging. I'm sure you're right that ideally smoking should just disappear, but it's not practical policy (mass smuggling for a start - 20% of fags are already imported IIRC), so squeezing it out step by step is the only workable approach.
On hospitals: nobody serious feels that evidence of poor care should be ignored. But most Tories here are pretty open about the partisan agenda as exemplified by today's Mail and Times - they think it necessary or deserved or whatever, but they don't pretend that Hunt and Cameron are seriously pursuing a neutral agenda. I don't actually think anyone is treating the NHS neutrally at the moment, but the Conservatives are ambiguous about the whole concept, vitiating their position on each individual controversy as it comes along.
This is even trickling into Twitter which was a much underused media by them until recently. Labour has been well ahead for ages, but the Back Boris campaign made a lot of social media and its clearly part of Lynton's strategy now.
The Smithson theory is that any and all mentions of the NHS helps Labour, partly because they make enthusiasm for it almost a religion. Does this have to continue for ever and ever? As more and more evidence is produced of its structural ineffeciences, maybe Labour's lead on health care will diminish. However, it will not disappear.
If the NHS' troubles could be made to hurt Labour, without benefitting the tories, is it too fanciful to suppose that might help other parties?
"ya think Roger ? My family's experience of the NHS isn't the most brilliant. I assume you don't use the service yourself."
Actually I do. I'm also with BUPA but recently have had to use the NHS because BUPA didn't have the specialist service.
And I'm now a convert. It's completely different to the service of years ago. They phone me to discuss convenient appointments and even text me. The only essential difference between them and BUBA is we don't discuss things in the cafe-and there's no complimentary Daily Mail.*
The change in the NHS from what it was in the 80's is comparable to that of BA when they got computers and someone in New york could book you a flight from Dublin to Paris at Midnight.
(*And the multiple checks to see if you are who you're supposed to be and the disclaimers in triplicate)
They were certainly proved right over the Lansley debacle weren't they?
That's why Lansley is still safe as houses as the Health Secretary as they so wisely predicted.
LOL
I think you rather forget that Crosby and Osbrowne were behind the master strategy of banging on about Europe and immigration before the local elections and Eastleigh.
Who was left looking stupid after that? Not the master strategists obviously.
That tory MPs have seemingly finally stopped running about like headless chickens over Europe and the kippers is neither here nor there as the swivel-eyed loons will tell you.
Mere coincidence that NF and the kippers fading seems to be helping the tories in the polling.
Apologies Nick, I wasn't thinking about the plain packaging issue, I was thinking about the original smoking ban.
If Labour's default advantage was reduced - it may float all boats and allow a wider discussion re what needs to be done.
We can't go on as we are - demographics alone won't let it happen.
We should all get behind the " people's champion Andy Burnham" (c) Peter Hain.
Exciting new technology could cut space travel costs to 5% of current levels and flight time to Australia to 4 hours: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/across-the-universe/2013/jul/17/sabre-rocket-engine-reaction-skylon
Test flights are pencilled in for 2019.
And some of them, their lives
Certainly not.
If Woollaston's views are not in line with CCHQ's then she is clearly a bothersome nuisance and the inept tory spinners are right to be upset over her.
You seem to forget that "serial labour voters" and tea party tories are the most trusted of all.
(aside from tabloid newspapers of course) ;^ )
Isabel Hardman @IsabelHardman
Alan Johnson talking about a colorectal surgeon who 'led from the bottom up'.
(Also, further evidence that any decent future for this country is based on science and technology while the cheap labour option is simply a one-way trip to nowhere.)
Space cannons, genetically engineered superfish and this Sabre engine all have a role to play.
Oh, and graphene. I do wonder if we'll see that in F1.
Given Westminster has to follow what is suitable for London and the south east , Scotland will never prosper whilst in the union but has a chance outside it.
It's also worth mentioning that whilst I'm sure there'll be an earnest debate about specific numbers a theoretically independent Scotland would have a fairly large debt and deficit as it takes its share from the UK upon separation.
Sorry to be late with this response , but I've been proof-reading technical reports for the last four+ hours.
You raise a very good point, how should we motivate and reward hard workers and those with initiative in the public sector?
I have worked mostly in the private sector and my brief spells in and with the public sector have left me very frustrated and taking a rapid exit.
In the private sector, as well as bonuses for company/group/personal performance, there is the freedom to raise their pay and benefit scale without promoting them up the management tree. For instance your best researcher may not be a good manager, does not want to be a manager and you want that person to keep producing new ideas/products/processes.
In the public sector, we have seen outcry when certain parts of the public sector have received a bonus - though it may not have been related to good performance.
It probably requires adopting a lot of the ethos, flexibility and efficiency of the private sector - without of course having the facility to opt out of any market sector - to change the thought process and practices of the public sector. What processes could be put in place to motivate those with initiative and hard work that would not cause a strike?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqpFNkc0ik
What’s also happened is that the mix has changed. There are 5,368 more doctors and 4,137 fewer nurses.
Mr Burnham argued that the drop in nurse numbers is behind the failings in NHS care.
As FactCheck has said before – without wanting to play down the importance of qualified nurses, essentially Labour is seizing on the only part of the clinical workforce where there has been a significant cut."
Issues facing country:
Health : 37 (+6)
Also "welfare benefits" remains firmly in place at no 4 on 30 (+1)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/16/article-2366312-1AD82D3A000005DC-979_306x1458.jpg
The pocket money argument makes sense if you see Scottish and British as mutually exclusive. A great many Scots do not, however.