Why listen to naysayers when Labour has so many reasons to be cheerful?

Please read and share this. It’s not uncritical of Labour, but it’s absolutely on point about the need for Labour to make forceful use of the huge piles of ammunition available for shooting down this lying, robbing government.

Vox Political

Vox Political reblogged a post on the Skwawkbox blog yesterday, identifying a commonplace tactic used by members and supporters of the Coalition government.

It works like this: You make an assertion in the media that will harm your opponents, even though you have no evidence to back it up. You argue your case vehemently, refusing to accept any alternatives to what you are saying. And when the evidence comes in and it’s against you, you say it is a stitch-up and continue claiming both the moral and factual victory.

This is what the Conservative Party has been doing, loudly and continually. Look at its record on the NHS and on social security reforms and you’ll see that this assertion is supported by fact. Now, more factual evidence has arrived to undermine other Tory claims.

In spite of this, the Labour Party presents the appearance of an organisation torn by inner…

View original post 2,121 more words

7 responses to “Why listen to naysayers when Labour has so many reasons to be cheerful?

  1. Pingback: Why listen to naysayers when Labour has so many...·

  2. It’s a pretty rum do working in the NHS if you have any commitment to it. This is because of the “creative destruction” and endless reorganisation and now barely concealed privatisation that is going on around us as we just try to do our bloody jobs! We, and a vast majority of patients who are very unsettled by all this (and any local catastrophes that look imminent) are desperate for Mr Milliband and Mr Burnham to climb off the fence and start beating up the government on the various bits of nonsense that are going on, including the arrival of “special administrators” in perfectly good hospitals – which I would remind you are there because they are of value to the local community, not because they are good at competing with other hospitals serving adjacent communities (or should be). None of these can set the prices for what they do despite wildly different circumstances and histories so how can they “go into administration” I ask you. In a stitch-up that’s how. This is like letting the Vogons build an interplanetary highway through the earth because we didn’t get around to pressing the button that would blow up their spaceship. Come on Ed and Andy – please, please, please start putting the boot in and don’t worry about the New Labour brigade – they’ll cope.

  3. Stafford police had criminal prima facie
    evidence in my case of fraud and
    neglect!!well before mass exposure of
    needless deaths as indeed robert francis qc whom noted very concerned about york nhs trust denying insulin.
    Investigations ect.infact my evidence
    widely circulated inwhich needless

    Jan brooks has an going police investigation timsanguish in which

  4. Ring mr julian ziem
    ann at stafford police
    professional standards or the chief constable if you wish .julie bayley
    is not a fantasist i read the abuse and
    harrassment myself.whether to proceed with prosecution is ultimately the decision of the chief constable.not to
    proceed does not mean there wasn’t

    • The posts here which I’ve read haven’t expressed doubts about genuine cases of neglect or cover-ups or bullying of whistleblowers – all of which must be fully investigated and the real causes and culprits (esp. if the cause isn’t systemic) laid bare.

      The posts instead challenge exaggerated claims which have clearly been used to deceive the public and are still being used to focus attention away from the real causes (which, as a result, aren’t being sufficiently addressed, like dangerously low actual nurse numbers per shift) in order to persuade the public that the only solutions lie elsewhere: dramatic, black & white, binary closures & sell-offs.

      These eye-catching headline solutions fit with policies already espoused by this Govt. and veil the deep-seated issues which outsourcing to commercial providers can only worsen because the necessary transparency required to investigate avoidable deaths or neglect (for example) is then totally missing, a far worse future situation:

      1. Freedom of information requests are already delayed or blocked in the public sector but haven’t even been made compulsory for private health providers, aren’t a prerequisite for NHS outsourced contracts & can only be pursued via an indirect labyrinthine series of bodies.

      2. The much-vaunted ban on gagging clauses within the NHS hasn’t been made a prerequisite for external providers or even as a condition for contracts awarded when outsourcing services.

      3. Contract law as applied to subcontractors is already a minefield and, particularly in relation to services subcontracted by private providers or by NHS Trusts themselves, it is already clear that the responsibility for any malpractice covered up in the private sector will be dispersed and next to impossible to identify or enforce. Causes, culprits & compensation will forever recede and hide out of reach or be sidestepped or unacceptably delayed.

      The Govt. has no incentive to enforce transparency on providers in the private sector. Instead it actively helps, encourages & trains them and does nothing which may reduce the attraction for contract bidders.

      Rather than vigorously representing the health interests of the public, the Govt. appears bent on undermining them to suit an even less accountable structure.

      Please read with a clear head the posts here Steve has carefully researched before assuming that his aim is not to help the most vulnerable or those most dependent on a vital and still-efficient public service. Nothing is further from the truth.

      Those who attack or smear him today will rue this day once they realise the real target was much more powerful, insidious and dangerous – and survived mostly unopposed elsewhere.

    • For there to be a prosecution you need to know who to prosecute, and for that you need evidence. The only “evidence” offered by Julie Bailey were claims made to the media, not the police, who had to approach her, not the other way around. And then they found no evidence of what she had been claiming happened. The “hate campaign” was deliberate and timed attempt to take attention from the Stafford March, garner sympathy and to spitefully smear the town that had failed to support her. You’re right, she’s not a fantasist – but she has been deceitful and manipulative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s