Below is the wording of a press release that I have written and sent to my local media.
The Labour Party spokesperson for College Ward is calling for the capping and eventual scrapping of car parking charges at the Princess Royal Hospital. In a letter to the PRH Trust Mr Ion is asking for all charges to be capped at £1 per visit until 2012 and for the Trust to bring forward proposals to scrap the charge altogether by 2013. Speaking to Labour Party members in Wellington Mr Ion stated that: "The founding principle of the NHS was that it would offer free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare. Surely this should apply whether you go to hospital as a patient, as a visitor or a member of staff. For patients attending the PRH for out-patient treatment and visitors concerned with the health of their families, worrying about the cost of parking is the last thing they need, and as hospital procedures are notoriously unpredictable, having to rush out after a couple of hours to move their car will in many cases just not be possible. It is also the case that staff employed at the PRH frequently have to work long hours with different shift patterns and many need to travel to their place of work by car. In addition, many of the staff do not live in areas with access to suitable public transport need to travel by car. These workers, many of whom are very low paid, need access to free, safe car parking at their place of work.
In 2007/2008 patients in the Telford area, their family and friends and hospital staff who attend the RSH and the PRH paid nearly £700,000 in car parking charges. Wales and Scotland have already got rid of these charges and the sooner we end them here in England the better." According to Mr Ion the present charges constitute a tax on the sick and he cited a recent opinion poll carried out by Macmillan Cancer Support where it was found that more than half of cancer patients do not get free or discounted parking on hospital visits.
Mr Ion is also calling on the PRH Trust to review its present policy that results in porters, nurses and doctors having to pay for the privilege of parking their own cars at their place of work. "Why should hard working public servants have to pay a set fee each year to be able to park their car at their place of work? I strongly believe that the Trust should think again about charging staff to park their car. It doesn't happen in other workplaces and many staff find it a real burden" said Mr Ion.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Thursday, December 03, 2009
The Tories thought it was in the bag but...
'Cameron's Conservatives: Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich?' It is not impossible that Labour will deploy this as a potentially potent slogan as we get closer and closer to election day. The Tories were quite clearly rattled by Cameron's dismal performance at yesterday's PMQs and Brown clearly believes that both Osborne and Cameron are vulnerable to accusations of elitism and patronage. Today's 'cash for croutons' revelations will only add to the perception that today's Tory party is the friend of the rich and the powerful.
The disastrous 'Tory toff' campaign prompted a plethora of articles and comment about whether class is still a major issue in modern Britain, but why? Why is it still an issue and why do so many people in the media react to the debate in the way that they do? In my experience talk of 'toffs' and privilege - particularly in the present economic climate - resonates with ordinary people and makes many so called 'liberal' journalists and media folk feel a touch uncomfortable. The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. In 2007 an ICM poll for the Guardian found that 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Mr Cameron's Conservative front bench is made up of the "right kind of people", his people - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. In 2007, Cameron told his party's spring conference that it needed to change and that the changes needed to be "faster, wider and deeper". Nearly three years later and change in the Tory party looks to be slow, narrow and shallow.
In politics if you are not on the attack then you are on the defence, on the front foot or the back foot. For this reason courage is the friend of political leaders and caution, their enemy. What Gordon Brown has proved in recent weeks is that when a governing party has confidence and self-belief it is far more willing (and able) to offer a lead and to take the tough decisions. What Brown is fast learning is that the British people are often happy and willing to forgive the occasional error and poor decision but they rarely forgive the leader who simply refuses to take a decision because it is too tough. The Tory labels of ‘bottler’ and ‘ditherer’ hurt Brown and for most of the past twelve months the media has been looking for (and occasionally gifted) opportunities to portray the former Iron Chancellor as a bumbling buffoon. Brown's handling of the recession has gone some way to change this and has helped to restore his reputation for competence and decisiveness.
In contrast David Cameron’s handling of recent events has exposed him to criticism that he is a shallow, one dimensional leader who talks a good game but fails to deliver the big ideas when needed. Cameron has not had a good economic ‘war’ for several reasons. Firstly he has suffered from the perception that both he his party are too closely associated with the City fat cats whose greed triggered this financial meltdown. Secondly, since taking up their present posts neither he nor his shadow Chancellor has ever taken the opportunity to speak out against the dangers of a poorly regulated City. Thirdly, Cameron has not offered a clear policy alternative in terms of what a Tory administration would have done about the crisis had they been in office.Perhaps now we will see the media turn its attention to exactly how Britain would be different if the Tories were to form the next government.
Does Mr Cameron have the courage necessary to lead, to take the tough decisions? I doubt it. He says he wants tax cuts and more spending but with the same money. He says he wants to sort out all illegal immigration, but he opposes identity cards, the one thing essential to do it. He says he against academic selection one day but then backs plans to expand it the next.
Brown is right, the more Cameron says the less he actually says.
The disastrous 'Tory toff' campaign prompted a plethora of articles and comment about whether class is still a major issue in modern Britain, but why? Why is it still an issue and why do so many people in the media react to the debate in the way that they do? In my experience talk of 'toffs' and privilege - particularly in the present economic climate - resonates with ordinary people and makes many so called 'liberal' journalists and media folk feel a touch uncomfortable. The truth is that Britain remains a nation that is still dominated by class division. In 2007 an ICM poll for the Guardian found that 89% of those surveyed thought that people are still judged by their class - with almost half saying that it still counts for "a lot". Over 50% of people said that class, not ability, greatly affects the way they are seen. Mr Cameron's Conservative front bench is made up of the "right kind of people", his people - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. In 2007, Cameron told his party's spring conference that it needed to change and that the changes needed to be "faster, wider and deeper". Nearly three years later and change in the Tory party looks to be slow, narrow and shallow.
In politics if you are not on the attack then you are on the defence, on the front foot or the back foot. For this reason courage is the friend of political leaders and caution, their enemy. What Gordon Brown has proved in recent weeks is that when a governing party has confidence and self-belief it is far more willing (and able) to offer a lead and to take the tough decisions. What Brown is fast learning is that the British people are often happy and willing to forgive the occasional error and poor decision but they rarely forgive the leader who simply refuses to take a decision because it is too tough. The Tory labels of ‘bottler’ and ‘ditherer’ hurt Brown and for most of the past twelve months the media has been looking for (and occasionally gifted) opportunities to portray the former Iron Chancellor as a bumbling buffoon. Brown's handling of the recession has gone some way to change this and has helped to restore his reputation for competence and decisiveness.
In contrast David Cameron’s handling of recent events has exposed him to criticism that he is a shallow, one dimensional leader who talks a good game but fails to deliver the big ideas when needed. Cameron has not had a good economic ‘war’ for several reasons. Firstly he has suffered from the perception that both he his party are too closely associated with the City fat cats whose greed triggered this financial meltdown. Secondly, since taking up their present posts neither he nor his shadow Chancellor has ever taken the opportunity to speak out against the dangers of a poorly regulated City. Thirdly, Cameron has not offered a clear policy alternative in terms of what a Tory administration would have done about the crisis had they been in office.Perhaps now we will see the media turn its attention to exactly how Britain would be different if the Tories were to form the next government.
Does Mr Cameron have the courage necessary to lead, to take the tough decisions? I doubt it. He says he wants tax cuts and more spending but with the same money. He says he wants to sort out all illegal immigration, but he opposes identity cards, the one thing essential to do it. He says he against academic selection one day but then backs plans to expand it the next.
Brown is right, the more Cameron says the less he actually says.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Cameron's Tories: Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich
The Tories really are rattled by Cameron's dismal performance at today's PMQs. A strategy based on class warfare (Tory Toffs) is one that has and could backfire. But what about the strap line that reads:
Cameron's Tories: Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich
Cameron's Tories: Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich
The return of the clunking fist?
Even Conservativehome is reporting today's PMQs as a clear win for Brown. It states:
VERDICT: "A clear win on points for a confident Gordon Brown, with witty lines on Eton and on Cameron; 'The more he talks, the less he says'. David Cameron looks tired.
Too true. Is the great clunking fist back? I do hope so.
VERDICT: "A clear win on points for a confident Gordon Brown, with witty lines on Eton and on Cameron; 'The more he talks, the less he says'. David Cameron looks tired.
Too true. Is the great clunking fist back? I do hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)