Sunday, October 08, 2006

On yer bike, son.

Cameron's now claiming that the Tories are the defenders of the NHS.

What can I say? Aside from 'B******s.'

Whenever he speaks, always remember that he wrote the 2005 manifesto for the Tories. Just over twelve months ago, he believed in the patient's passport - a tax break for the wealthy. Now, he thinks that this is wrong, but can't really explain what he's going to do.

Remember also that this is the same party that lied about MRSA infections in a Yorkshire hospital - claiming that it had 247 infections, rather than the actual six. The larger figure was the count for the entire NHS region.

In fact, there's little change in the policy - Howard promised that the Tory government would spend the same on the NHS as Labour (aside from the £1.2 billion siphoned off to boost the ban accounts of their mates in the private sector).

Of course, one of the close members of the Etonian circle surrounding Cameron is Danny Kruger, the same Danny Kruger who was fired as a Tory candidate last year for demanding a period of 'creative destruction' in the public services, so we have to ask ourselves which is the real Cameron?

Is it the one who believes in the NHS or the one who wants to drain it of money?

Is it the new huggy, all-inclusive Dave or the bloke who penned one of the nastiest, cheapest, lowest common denominator Tory manifestos in living memory?

Tom Watson asks some questions of Brand Cameron in his latest videoblog entry on YouTube. For all of Cameron's claims to use the web as a method of communication, he's only allowing it to be one-way. Others realise that it can be a powerful tool for debate and discussion with the ordinary members of the public - see Tom Watson or John Hemming (if you must) for people who are prepared to enter into discussion with us lesser mortals.

Daniel Kawczynski, previously only known as the tallest MP in the House, came clean on Sunday and admitted he'd been funded by the shadowy 'Midlands Industrial Council.' On 'The Politics Show', he told us that he wasn't concerned by the secrecy - it would only cause him a problem if he had ever thought the MIC would pressure him in any particular way. That rather misses the point, Daniel. Transparency in party funding is about reassuring the electorate that everything is above board. He then raised the red herring of union funding, claiming that we don't know all the intricacies of who controls the union funds. Well, we do. Union members can opt out of the political levy or even vote to stop it altogether. Union leaders are elected by their members and are accountable to them. The whole union system is pretty open to scrutiny and the unions wear their party allegiance on their sleeves. The 'MIC' isn't. We don't know who donates to it, nor what kickbacks they may or may not receive. Sure, the MIC works within the letter of the law, but is it within the spirit?

I doubt it.

No comments: