199 replies to this topic

[Mike]

Stewart Lee on Alex Salmond and Scottish independence: http://www.guardian....nd-independence

It's a somewhat disingenuous argument though, and the same one Ed Milliband made to a damp reception in Glasgow last week.

Scotland suffered disproportionately under Thatcher's Tories for exactly this same reason: Scotland doesn't matter to the Tories, because we don't vote for them. Devolution has insulated us from some of Cameron's policies - the dismantling of the NHS first and foremost amongst them. Westminster and Holyrood started to diverge even when the same party was nominally in charge of both Parliaments; why shouldn't that process continue to explore itself, to see if Scotland genuinely does want to be master of its own fate again?

I don't doubt for a minute that the consequence of easier elections for his party to the Westminster Parliament has occurred to David Cameron, but I do not see why that should prevent Scotland continuing down the path it is on, if that is the settled will of the Scottish people.

Politics in Scotland are fundamentally different to Westminster politics; it's not just that Tories are semi-mythical north of the Border, it's that the Scottish Tory and Labour parties are different creatures to their Westminster counterparts. Devolution has allowed the differences in social emphasis and politics between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom to flourish; we may be about to see them erupt into full bloom.

If independence happens then England will be Scotland's first friend and closest ally; but Lee's argument is not a reason to turn away from the sense that that settled will is perhaps, just perhaps, building towards a sense of ourselves as an independent nation again.

I have a lot of respect for Stewart Lee; but he's wrong about this. Tories are, right now, a largely English phenomenon; if they are a problem, they will require an English solution, not a Scottish one. Lee's plea effectively relies on perpetuating the inequalities of the West Lothian Question; increasing devolution, reduced input of Scottish MPs to Westminster, and ultimately, perhaps, independence is an equitable solution to that problem.

[garjones]

I don't doubt for a minute that the consequence of easier elections for his party to the Westminster Parliament has occurred to David Cameron, but I do not see why that should prevent Scotland continuing down the path it is on, if that is the settled will of the Scottish people.

It would be very short lived at best. The people of England wouldn't want a one party state, you may see Labour move further right to get Tory waverers but the idea that the Tories would win every election is based on past performance and is flawed. If you applied that to Scotland and Wales then Labour would easily be in perpetual power but in practice they are in opposition in Scotland and have had to power share with Plaid Cymru in Wales.

[steveuk]

PM Pledges To Fight Scottish Independence

The Prime Minister says he will "fight with everything I have" to prevent Scottish independence.

David Cameron will come face-to-face with Scotland's first minister in Edinburgh today for talks on the proposed independence referendum.
It is their first meeting since the Prime Minister stepped up his opposition to a UK break-up at the beginning of the year.

Prior to the discussions, he will deliver a speech in which he will say: "The fight is now under way for something really precious: the future of our United Kingdom.

"I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.

"To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation - it matters head, heart and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out.

"Of course, there are arguments that can be made about the volatility of dependence on oil, or the problems of debt and a big banking system. But that's not the point.

"The best case for the United Kingdom is entirely positive. We are better off together. Why? Well, first of all, let's be practical. Inside the United Kingdom, Scotland - just as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland - is stronger, safer, richer and fairer."

<SNIP>

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cameron-pledges-fight-scottish-independence-013911762.html

As is often the case (not just with politicians but also with the rest of us) he's contradicting himself. He says he's fighting for the continuation of the UK for emotional reasons not practical ones, then he says it is practical ones after all.

Why not just say he thinks it's both?

[David Meadows]

I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.

That's worrying. He "has" the British army.

But anyway, I welcome the day our Scottish brothers achieve independence, probably after fighting tanks in the street of Edinburgh with naught but bagpipes and highland ponies.

I only hope they draw the border at the Humber, or somewhere like that.

Edited by David Meadows, 16 February 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[garjones]

The problem Cameron has is the more a Tory based in London argues a case to the Scottish people the more likely they are to head the other way. He'd be better off just shutting up about it since the argument hasn't been won by the SNP yet, he'll just be assisting them.

[steveuk]

The problem Cameron has is the more a Tory based in London argues a case to the Scottish people the more likely they are to head the other way. He'd be better off just shutting up about it since the argument hasn't been won by the SNP yet, he'll just be assisting them.

True.

That's not a choice a Prime Minister can make though. There's a limit to how much he can delegate without looking disinterested or weak.

[David Chapman]

The problem Cameron has is the more a Tory based in London argues a case to the Scottish people the more likely they are to head the other way. He'd be better off just shutting up about it since the argument hasn't been won by the SNP yet, he'll just be assisting them.

The SNP are going to lose, there is no question about it. That's why Salmond is trying to crowbar through a demand to allow anyone over 16 to vote in the referendum: because kids of 16 and 17 are naive enough to think Braveheart is reality, and so heavily support independence. It's also why he wants the referendum in 2014 instead of ASAP - partly to give him more time to curry support, but mostly because he knows support for his party will erode rapidly once it's been demonstrated that the majority of Scots don't want independence and he wants to hang onto power for as long as possible. I think he knows the best he can hope for is Devo Max, too, and it's going to take time to explain what this means to his base.

[Christian U]

http://www.guardian....disabled-people

[/font][/color]

It's a very simple, crude and nasty cocktail:

1. Take people's very limited knowledge of how the benefits system actually operates
2. Mix well with their equally limited knowledge of governmental budgets.
3. Stir in a totally misleading but plausible analogy of the government budget being akin to that of a household.
4. Add in a couple of figures, without anything to compare it to, so £12bn for DLA claimants is an awful lot isn't it? Don't you think it should be cut?
5. Portray the recipients as unemployed, inactive non-taxpayers carefully burying that DLA is often claimed by disabled people working and paying taxes.
6. Fan the flames and disavow all responsibility for what then happens.

I'm sure there are people abusing the system but, in the case of DLA it's a very small percentage - 0.5% according to ONS, people love to damn statistics as useless, yet if you don't go by statistics then what? Something your mate swears he was told by a bloke down the pub? And those 0.5% are going to be putting in an awful lot of work into maintaining their complex deception. They can be caught but it takes time and resources to do the job properly, guess what's also being cut?

EDIT: Couple of sad and quite disturbing case studies in what it shows about people's attitude to disability:

http://www.guardian....tudy?intcmp=239

Christ, that's a nasty development.

[Mike]

Interesting rumours that David Cameron went on what was meant to be a high-profile hospital visit yesterday, but it all went a wee bit wrong...

[Christian U]

The problem Cameron has is the more a Tory based in London argues a case to the Scottish people the more likely they are to head the other way. He'd be better off just shutting up about it since the argument hasn't been won by the SNP yet, he'll just be assisting them.

Maybe he's following the same logic as Stewart Lee is and is trying to get rid of Scotland.

[garjones]

Maybe he's following the same logic as Stewart Lee is and is trying to get rid of Scotland.

I'm sure it must have crossed his mind. As I said before I don't think it would mean eternal Tory government in England but it would shift things to the right which would favour him. The party is called Conservative though and his core supporters, and probably he himself, believe fervently in the UK and preserving the way it is.

As David says I don't think Scotland would vote for independance, they may well for devolution max which is why Cameron is trying to take it off the table. If they did vote for it I think Cameron is more a deciding factor than Salmond. If he gets his way with right wing reforms nationally then it'll scare more Scots away from the UK.

[David Meadows]

Interesting rumours that David Cameron went on what was meant to be a high-profile hospital visit yesterday, but it all went a wee bit wrong...

Tell! Tell!

[Paul F]

Tell! Tell!

This is all I've seen on it: http://eoin-clarke.b...s-hospital.html

[Christian U]

A member of the public got in touch to say that Cameron had received a very cold reception from the staff. The complainant also stated that there had been a rumoured altercation, and that the press had been kept away.

Dear God Mike, what did you say to David Cameron?

[steveuk]

Dear God Mike, what did you say to David Cameron?

The truth perhaps?

I'd like to see something verified on this story. British people don't get into "altercations" with our Prime Ministers all the often and usually someone gets a picture or two of it happening.

[Martin Smith]

The truth perhaps?

I'd like to see something verified on this story. British people don't get into "altercations" with our Prime Ministers all the often and usually someone gets a picture or two of it happening.

The closest I've heard is when Cameron was touring my dad's place of work and they came through the same door in different directions and nearly walked into each other.

[David Meadows]

I didn't realise you came from a family of anarchists, Martin.

[Martin Smith]

I didn't realise you came from a family of anarchists, Martin.

Yep, militant, civil anarchists.

Wait, I mean military and civil servants. :|

[garjones]

The full story of Cameron's visit to NHS Hospital, with new confirmation from a visitor, patient & journalist.


As many of you reading this will know, I published various details of the Prime Minister's Wednesday visit to the Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary on this site over the last couple of days. What I now intend to do is talk you through a chronology of what happened that day.

News of the Prime Minister's Wednesday visit emerged the night before, when Conservative Central Office announced that the PM would be making a high profile visit to a hospital in the NE to a) bolster support for his NHS reforms & b) raise the importance of the damage binge drinking is doing. It was heavily trailed by the Murdoch press (see here for example). Two of my sources, privately, tell me that the staff were not informed of the PM's intended visit. Publicly, a governor of a Foundation Trust @RichardBlogger confirmed that this has happened before, where visits by the PM to his hospital were not even confirmed or cleared with the Board of Governors. In addition, @Adrian_Pearson, who is a chief correspondent at several North East newspapers, confirmed through a series of tweets in advance of the PM's visit that it was all very top secret because the last time the PM had visited there were protests (I do not recall those protests being reported do you?).

When Cameron arrived at the hospital journalist @Adrian_Pearson can also confirm that the journalists were 'locked [sic]' in a waiting room. They were not allowed to accompany the Prime Minister as he met staff in Newcastle RVI (check Adrian's tweets for confirmation). In addition, Omar Oakes, a journalist from the Wimbledon Guardian who tweets as @OmarOakes confirmed that the PM did not allow journalists to accompany him meeting staff & patients when he visited Kingston NHS Hospital in April 2010 with Zac Goldsmith. You can see footage of Cameron's visit to Kingston here (at this link). Now, several have defended this practice of pre-emptive censorship as normal procedure for a PM, but I can prove that it is not. Here is footage (see link) of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's visit to the exact same hospital as Cameron in 2007. As you can see from that footage the then Labour PM was perfectly happy to let journalists see him meet staff. So, we can publicly confirm that journalists are pre-emptively censored & we can also confirm that this is not normal procedure. We can also confirm from past experiences, that Cameron's visits are not always announced to staff, or even governors, in advance. From the video of the Kingston visit you can also see that Cameron was reduced to giving his interview in a back corridor.

Now, what happened upon David Cameron's entry into the hospital itself, was until now, difficult to publicly confirm. 4 staff members have made their stories known privately but all are reluctant to come forward because they fear for their jobs. However, we do have the public account of a visitor to the hospital that day, and the account of a patient whose brother contacted me to give me an update on what went on at the hospital. It makes for interesting reading. My private sources tell me the Prime Minister got a bad reception. Much of the staff ignored him for his entire visit and he had to be closely guarded by police security. A young visitor Alexander Hay, who can be followed at @Alex_Hay tweeted about the Prime Minister's visit real time. He stated that he heard a nurse say to the PM "'I am vehemently opposed to reforms they're bad for patients and bad for care". Alex also confirms that the Prime Minister simply ignored the nurse and refused to reply to her. This cannot be verified by a journalist because they were locked in a room. But two further sources further reveal that the PM received a verbal volley from one staff member who had to be 'led away'. I am told that that staff member is facing disciplinary action. A senior NE Health Source was contacted last night by a health campaigner for an update of events that day, the reply stated the following, "I heard it went badly, that is all I can say".


Crucially, it was revealed to me late last night, by the brother of a patient, that one of the patients, his sister, was asked to remain in her hospital bed by a senior nurse when she buzzed herself out to go get her routine coffee. It is a procedural request that each patient at RVI receives prior permission to get their morning coffee. In this case the nurse cited security reasons, and the fact that the PM was on the ward, as the reason for requesting that the patient delay her morning coffee. The patient's brother did reveal this to me publicly (and then in a longer email) but I would ask that until the patient is fully recovered that her health difficulties are respected.
Reporting of the actual event was seriously below par. If we contrast the Sky News trailer that I linked at the start to the actual interview covered by the BBC afterwards, the contrast is stark (see BBC's report here). You can see from this coverage that the PM is not shown in contact with any staff members or patients. The PM received close police protection for his entire visit and was met by the hospital matron whom I do not wish to name. In addition, it has been stated by several sources that many staff just point blank refused to recognise his presence. Much of the anger from staff that day centred upon them not being informed of the PM's visit.

So we can confirm that the PM's walkabout was limited. We can reveal that nurses did indeed give him a hostile reception. We can confirm that he was reduced to giving a rather bland interview detached from staff and patients because his reception was so hostile. If you are in any doubt about how untoward all of this is, then I simply ask you to examine previous visits by other PMs to hospitals such as the one I have linked above.

The questions that remain outstanding are this, what was the extent of the verbal abuse directed at the PM? Why in a democracy are our press denied reporting the interaction of a PM with health staff a week before one of the most crucial votes in the NHS's history? If the PM choreographs all visits in this way, how are we, the public, ever supposed to make a judgement of him as a person, interacting with real people? Doesn't it seem wrong that patients be confined to their beds for the Prime Minister's security? Why does Cameron's team not see it fit to clear his visits through the normal procedures? Has the PM lost the entire faith of the medical profession that he is reduced to locking journalists in rooms and being shielded from contact with patients? What worries me the most is that we would know none of this if I was not prepared to dig. I am now in the sad situation of being contacted by journalists who were actually locked in the RVI waiting room that day, as they seek to determine what happened in the hospital they were in the day the PM visited. Is this the openness and transparency the Prime Minister promised? In light of this is anyone surprised that he won't publish the NHS Risk Register?

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/02/full-story-of-camerons-visit-to-nhs.html

[steveuk]

http://eoin-clarke.b...sit-to-nhs.html

A bit heavy handed, but the gist of it remains; why was this reported so badly?

NHS hostility is news. Reporters being locked in a room is something that needs more scrutiny too, but the NHS response really needs better coverage.