Why the Tories started with health
James Forsyth 2:18pm
The Tories today rolled out the first section of their manifesto this morning, the chapter on health. The reason the Tories started with their plans for the NHS, as they did when setting out their priorities for government last autumn, is quite simple: the leadership thinks that every time Cameron talks about health the party goes up in the polls.
Certainly, one of the achievements of Cameron’s leadership has been to cancel out Labour’s traditional advantage on the question of who is most trusted on the NHS; Labour’s lead on this question has been a statistically insignificant one percent in the last two polls on the subject according to Anthony Wells of the indispensable UK Polling Report.
This has been achieved at a cost of not saying or proposing anything on health that might frighten the horses. But having made this trade off, the leadership is determined to get full value out of it.



Previous







luke
January 4th, 2010 2:36pm Report this commentThey really didnt say anything of substance today at all though did they? Was deeply unimpressed.
Are they still going to close the polyclinics or has that policy been dropped?
Verity
January 4th, 2010 2:50pm Report this commentGod, Cameron's weak, vapid little face irritates me! As does his feeble copying of Obama's word "change".
TomTom
January 4th, 2010 2:51pm Report this commentWhat exactly is this NHS ? Once it encompassed dentistry and opticians, but we know that these are now private sector.
Once it covered long-term care but this is means-tested to death in England and makes the whole issue of health care moot as it is the middle class that pays the taxes and is increasingly means-tested out of benefiting from what it pays for.
There is a fundamental question as to whether the taxpaying middle class would get better treatment if they paid directly rather than into a giant pot which seems to benefit those paying in nothing.
With one migrant a minute registering with a GP and immigration of 500,000 annually, the sustainability of this model of redistributive taxed healthcare may not be sustainable. It relies upon the middle class paying the bills but not claiming; when they do the disappointment is immense especially with fatally late detection of common cancers and terminal illness
Martyn Rowe
January 4th, 2010 2:58pm Report this commentAnyone wanting power in this country has to commit to improving the NHS. To not do so would cost the election. Many on this board may not like it, and it might not be right, but it is a fact of political life.
I also like the presidential posters. They may appear to lack subtlety, but I think there is a certain amount of subtlety in Cameron exposing himself in this way, because it creates a contrast between him and Gordon Brown, who certainly won't be appearing on any Labour party campaigning literature (outside of Scotland).
It demonstrates the measure of personal-popularity between the two, inside their parties and outside of them.
charles hercock
January 4th, 2010 3:48pm Report this commentWe all instinctively feel we can trust Dave on this after his personal experiences.He did a wonderful maternity hospital appearance this weekend.We will win.
JohnW
January 4th, 2010 3:58pm Report this commentMaybe the reason he started with the NHS is thats all he's allowed to. Before Lisbon was ratified 80% of legislation originated in Brussels, now 100% does.
So what will Dave do for the next 4/5 years as PM? Twiddle his thumbs while gaming the expense rules? Or simply go on with the pretence that Westminster has any power left?
The coming General Election is a side show whose importance rivals that of X-Factor.
JONNY
January 4th, 2010 4:00pm Report this comment'God, Cameron's weak, vapid little face irritates me! As does his feeble copying of Obama's word "change"'
Or cynically decoded,
isn't the lad doing well..
David Lindsay
January 4th, 2010 4:19pm Report this commentThey have started on solid ground. Simply by staying as they were, they have, in line with public opinion, had a more left-wing health policy than New Labour for as long as there has been any New Labour.
Their longstanding Health Spokesman could do with a higher profile, having voted against the Iraq War and almost certainly being one of only two Shadow Cabinet members who are not among the eighty per cent of sitting Tory MPs, and as good as one hundred per cent of those about to get in, who are treasonably on the Mossad payroll.
They are still not going to win, though. To my certain knowledge, professional psephologists with records of winning big on the outcomes of elections have already placed their bets on a hung Parliament with Labour as the largest party.
Verity
January 4th, 2010 5:12pm Report this commentI cannot believe that the Tories have stuck with a loser like David Cameron for four years. Do they not know that there has never been any enthusiasm for him outside Westminster Village?
Dorothy Wilson
January 4th, 2010 5:27pm Report this commentVerity: please post a picture of your own face so that we can all make a rude comment about that too.
Dorothy Wilson
January 4th, 2010 5:28pm Report this commentDavid Linsay: As I've posted before, if that happens sterling will go into a nose dive, our credit rating will be downgraded, interest rates will go up and the economy will go into a deep dip. Good news for Labour?
General Zod
January 4th, 2010 5:48pm Report this commentI've always though he had quite a large face actually. He's not a small man.
Funny, one of the posters in this thread makes me think of Zelda from Terrahawks.
David Lindsay
January 4th, 2010 5:55pm Report this commentDorothy Wilson, good news for my friends who've placed their bets. And far from their first such good news. If I were a betting man, then I'd do the same. But I'm not.
The Tories would be different how, exactly? And who would even be the Chancellor, since it would be "goodbye" to The Weakest Link?
Ian Walker
January 4th, 2010 5:56pm Report this comment@David Lindsay: the only reason a professional gambler would drop a large amount of cash this far from a result, would be in expectation of a short term shortening of the odds so that a quick hedge could lock in a profit.
Otherwise you'd be tying up your capital for five months.
Holly ......
January 4th, 2010 6:14pm Report this commentHope you are as irritated at Brown when he talked of asperation yesterday.
Copied directly from Cameron.
Cameron is right in saying we need change and asperation.
Brown just tags along behind like a magpie picking up the shiny bits.
Cameron today has gone in front of the cameras and questioned Darling's bull.
He may shock a few more before the election,by telling it like it is.
He is head and shoulders above Brown and Brown knows this.
It is called class.Upper,middle,lower,
working whatever Cameron has it.Brown doesn't.
Brown belittles money yet slavers over it,he can not get enough of it,he does not give a damn who's it is,where it has come from or where it goes.
He thinks he has class by spending other peoples money.
You think Cameron is 'irritating'?
Brown is despised and laughed at in the same measures.
So irritating is okay.
Wait until he REALLY GETS ON YOUR NERVES!!!!
Then you will know how the majority in Britain feel like about Brown.
JONNY
January 4th, 2010 6:15pm Report this commentExactly Dorothy Wilson:
SKYPE should do the trick.
David Lindsay
January 4th, 2010 6:49pm Report this commentIan Walker, they are not professional gamblers, they are professional psephologists with a sideline. One of them is a Lib Dem councillor and another is a diehard Tory, but they are still in no doubt.
Nor are their colleagues who do not bet. As one of those said to me, "Anyone who doubts this [a hung Parliament with Labour as the largest party], can't count".
These are the people who calmly predicated a reduced Tory majority, rather than a hung Parliament or a Labour win, in 1992. They have never been wrong. Never.
Anne Wotana Kaye 1
January 4th, 2010 7:14pm Report this commentCrickee, the plonker hasn't even yet been elected and already there are horrid schoolboy/girl jokes about Cameron's face. It's one thing mocking GB's dial, it's a terrible countenance to contemplate, but basically it's acceptable because he is the very worst prime minister we've ever had.
Actually, they are all a dodgy looking
lot, including wouldbe Casanova Clegg. Who would buy a second-hand car from any of them?
Martyn Rowe
January 4th, 2010 8:27pm Report this commentI agree with Holly. Cameron may irritate some people but in comparison Brown is universally despised. Even in my neck of the woods. And I live in an area where you could stick the rosette on the proverbial Labour donkey.
Even on Facebook, where 95% of my knucklescraping friends know nowt about politics, the Brown abuse is breathtaking. He gets the locals reaching for their Kalashnikov's.
And JONNY - I think you are spot on with your Verity-analysis!
JONNY
January 4th, 2010 8:45pm Report this comment'They have never been wrong. Never.'
All I can say to that David Lindsay is
"Ha, Ha, Ha"
Salaam. Salaam.
The Oracle has spoken. Wowee!
In Olden Times it used to be sited in Delphi.
Verity
January 4th, 2010 9:38pm Report this commentAWK1 - Vulture and I have been commenting on Cameron's face for around six months.
Anne Wotana Kaye 1
January 4th, 2010 9:59pm Report this commentVerity: Sssh! You can't tell a book by its cover - but a good cover sure sells plenty. Good night.
JONNY
January 4th, 2010 10:01pm Report this comment' Vulture and I have been commenting on Cameron's face for around six months.
Just so my dear. Now then -
How's that SKYPE of yours coming on?
Chuck Unsworth
January 4th, 2010 10:04pm Report this comment@ Verity
"Vulture and I have been commenting on Cameron's face for around six months."
Indeed you have.
Although it feels so much longer than that.
General Zod
January 4th, 2010 10:16pm Report this commentReally now, David Lindsay.
If I had a beard, I'd be stroking it in a meaningful way.
Did they predict Heath's victory then?
ala b
January 5th, 2010 9:36am Report this commentcameron will continue to look weak as he know that none of his promises mean anything as the little bit of financial info divulged by the treasury is horrendous and added to the lies of the government the country is up the creek and a paddle in the shape of a conservative govenrment will probably only delay the day of the UK copping out of its debts thro bankrutcy will creep ever closer and he will get the blame. you would look shifty and weak if you were in that position. if he told the full truth about the damage that has been done he would only bring about what most people have a gut feeling about to a head.
Fergus Pickering
January 5th, 2010 12:01pm Report this commentDavid Lindsay, what is a professional presphologist? Is it someone who is paid by someone else to predict elections? Rather like a racing tipster then? Are you saying that your two mates have never been wrong or that professional psephologists are never wrong? Have you put a large chunk of money on this prediction? Have you remortgaged your house to do this? If not then put your money where your mouth is, friend? How can an election five months from now possibly be a certainty? As for the Tories in 1992, I would have wagered against the bleeding pillock myself. I didn't need no tealeaves.
Dorothy Wilson
January 5th, 2010 3:59pm Report this commentDavid Lindsay: "since it would be "goodbye" to The Weakest Link?" Well, since Brown will have been voted out of office the "Weakest Link" will be gone by then.
Back to top