PMQs: Suffolk murders and the NHS

Tony Blair said Suffolk Police would get all the support they needed to deal with the recent murders of prostitutes there, and that there might be lessons to learn from the terrible events.

David Cameron said that "we all want this monster to be caught and locked up".

Menzies Campbell asked for a review of law affecting prostitutes, and to ensure the safety of women (sticking to either very sensitive issues or foreign policy questions as usual).

Cameron used all of his questions in one go, most of which sparred with Blair over the NHS. Referring to the Commons health select committee report, Cameron said:

"The prime minister stands here week after week saying that local cuts are the fault of local health staff, but this report shows it is poor central management."

Much of the NHS debate was standard fare. Blair comparing NHS (which he called "the pride of Britain") waiting lists etc to 1997 levels and hailing massive investment, whislt Cameron pointed out planned closures of A&E and maternity wards, and finishing with:

"Isn't the problem that the man at the centre is a lame duck? Will you give us all an early Christmas present and tell us when you'll be off?"

On the question of pay for forces deployed for long periods, Blair gave a very long-winded and complicated answer lasting quite a few minutes that basically concluded that everyone was better off. There were loud cheers and calls for "more" of the magic trick. Cameron tuned into the atmosphere and commented that when Blair retires he could have a job as Sir Humphrey in a new series of Yes, Prime Minister.

Alan Beith (LD) complained that the North East gets nothing like Scotland's Barnett Formula to help pay for roads.

Jane Kennedy (LAB) invited Blair to meet a constituent of hers who arrived in Liverpool in 1939 to escape the Holocaust, to send a strong message about its undeniability.

Sir Peter Tapsell (CON), who stood to enthusiastic "hear hearing", said that if the PM could apologise for the actions of our ancestors, could he apologise for the disaster in Iraq?

The Speaker interrupted a supplementary question from Denis MacShane (LAB) which was leading on to the Conservatives' plans to leave the EPP.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[L Ellman]

Quite a boring one this week.

[Andrew Woodman]

Why's MacShane so concerned about who we sit with in the European Parliament!

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Ming was really terrible - did anyone see him?

[Andrew Woodman]

For once I agree with you Justin. No point to his questions at all. They seemed like statements.

[malcolm]

Nick Assinder at the BBC unimpressed with DC today.Now there's a suprise! According to Nick DC has won, I think, about 2 of the dozens of PMQs this year . And they say the BBC is biased!!!

[George Hinton]

Dave should have asked B-Liar whether Suffolk Constabulary would be given extra subventions, from central funds, not the local taxpayers, if the 5 murder enquiry became prolonged and costly.
As always with PMQ's, B-Liar is a slippery little eel, weasling out of giving proper answers, and then spinning some piece of crap NuLab propaganda.
Are our troops in Iraq and Afghan going to get extra monies? Was there a difinitive answer.
I am led to believe that the MOD's payroll system and structure is fiendishly complex, and these extra payments just cannot be accomodated.
Symptomatic of NuLab, devise something complex, throw squillions at a computer system that has to become bespoke and totally unworkable, and then hail its success when it either fails to perform its function or crashes.
Does any one see the similarities with the NHS here?

[TomTom]

Why is a crime investigation for a local constabulary a matter for the House of Commons ?

Something of the Council Chamber about Westminster.........maybe they could focus on issues that affect the nation rather than what is providing the tabloids with their dream cover pages of sex and violence.

[John Coles]

You're so right, TomTom. I think Westmister realises how little influence thay have over the nation's affairs now that most of the legislation is sub-contracted to Brussels and so the poor darlings major on today's tabloid stories.
I note that: ""David Cameron said that "we all want this monster to be caught and locked up".""
Not quite, Mr Cameron. Most would like to see him caught and hung.

[Jack Stone]

If the murder of five women isn`t a matter important enougth for the House of Commons to be discussing I honestly don`t know what is!

[TomTom]

Well Jack you are so terribly provincial which is why you should become a Councillor.

However we have a UK Parliament to address issues like an Army engaged in combat without appropriate equipment.....that is an issue to be addressed like why they lack Vipr thermal imaging sights to detect suicide bombers.

I think that rates higher than playing Murder She Wrote in the Commons. I think telling Desperate Des to spend the £9600 per soldier on the thermal imaging sight would be a good start.

Then we could discuss the impact of the US economic slowdown on British companies; the fact that Metal Box is replacing British workers with Poles, and the general state of security in the country.

Perhaps they could discuss why Midwives are being made redundant in the NHs when the country is short of them.

Maybe they could discuss the availability of forged EU Passports as Panorama showed and Die Welt is now reporting.

Maybe they could discuss the fate of the A400M HeavyLift transport plane from EADS

They might find it worth noting that 60% Britiain's transport budget is subsidising railways but the fares are astronomic.

There are so many things that MPs could debate rather than the ritualised regret that another British soldier is dead because his country cannot scrape together the cash to equip him properly...........

[TomTom]

Thermal

Now that's an issue for debate in the House of Commons

[Martin Cole]

Jack Stone@17:14 posted:

"If the murder of five women isn`t a matter important enough for the House of Commons to be discussing I honestly don`t know what is!"

Good point, and Blair's response was shameful.

I know that Simon Heffer is the prime target for the Cameroons but his statement in his column this morning in relation to the murders and drugs is more crucial:

"Drugs use is against the law because of its appalling social consequences. The law should be enforced in an exemplary way. If that means nice middle-class people – possibly like some of those in the shadow cabinet – going to jail, so much the better."

That is the crux of the Conservative Party's dilemma. The party membership voted for DC knowing his lack of response to drug abuse questions could mean only one thing. Hence the first class report publicised earlier this week by IDS is made essentially worthless.

What has happened in and around Ipswich, not just the murders but the prostitution and drug addiction, is a reflection of the same culture and attitudes that allowed ordinary Conservatives party members to elect David Cameron Party Leader in spite of his avoidance of important questions regarding drugs and therefore earlier potentially criminal activities.

While the questions posed by the Lib/Dem leader at PMQ today may have drifted over the heads of those who might pick a David Cameron as their party leader, I feel sure Simon Heffer and many of the readers of his Daily Telegraph column this morning, fully got the point.

[Tory Loyalist]

These prostitutes are the victims of the very same vicious drug culture that a number of MPs have funded in the past.

If these women had not become addicts and turned to vice, they would still be alive.

That's why I believe that any MP who has ever touched hard drugs should be kicked out of parliament. In the immortal words of Peter Lilley, I have a little list.

Other horror stories today included the death of the baby scalded through some monstrous official negligence, but in Blair's Cool Britannia, which Cameron and no doubt Justin admire so much, all this had to be swept aside to make way for the REAL news.

Apparently a noise pollution concert is to be held in "honour" of the late and thoroughly unlamented Princess Diana.

Horror of horrors! all tickets for this eminently missable event were sold to touts in the first 30 minutes and are now being offered for sale on eBay alongside assorted items of Nazi memorabilia and "Invitation to a wedding I don't want to go to"

So bl**dy what?

[Tory Loyalist]

I posted the above before reading Martin Cole's excellent comment.

It seems that a lot of minds - great or otherwise - are thinking alike.

[david]

The present shadow cabinet is probably influenced by the following

http://www.alanduncan.org.uk/legalisationofdrugs.html

[Valedictoryan]

That's why I believe that any MP who has ever touched hard drugs should be kicked out of parliament. In the immortal words of Peter Lilley, I have a little list.

Perspective!

15-24 year olds, 2005 (ONS): All poisoning (including drugs) accounts for 3% of deaths. Traffic accidents account for 30% of deaths. Through positive action, most of those traffic deaths are preventable because, by the time you get to 35, the traffic death statistic is down to 4%.

So, whether we're canning errant MPs because they've done something illegal or been dangerous, it's got to apply to traffic offences too.

The fact is that, while there are millions of recreational drug users, it is an issue that falls outside the experience and well outside the comfort zone of the Typical Tory. Hence the frothing. Fast driving, possibly even tipsy driving, well nobody would advise it, but we all know people who do it and they're not monsters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning drugs, but Perspective is watchword. I recommend that Tory policy be based on fact, not belief.

[Tory Loyalist]

Well Valedictoryan, you may think drinking and driving is something that can be laughed off when you are out with the lads but I certainly do not. I believe it should be very severely punished.

What I would say is this; driving offences are the "dark side" of a largely utilitarian activity which - in many ways regrettably - must now be considered essential to modern life.

There are no positive aspects to drug abuse (NOT "recreational use" - what a disgusting, nauseating perversion of the word "recreation"). There are, however, some abusers who deserve pity and help on account of the miserable circumstances that have led them into degradation. I do not know the circumstances of these unfortunate women in Ipswich, but it is very likely that their lives might command our Christian compassion, were we apprised of the details.

The people who deserve only disgust and contempt are the well-heeled "yuppie" drug abusers. No doubt they believe that they are smart enough to be able to control their "habits" but they are paying money for those habits which fuels the industry that destroys the lives of others less fortunate than themselves.

What do you mean by that ridiculous Cameronite cliche "comfort zone"? I've worked in the same office as drug abusers and I've seen them destroy their lives and careers. We have to fight this menace and destroy it by every means at our disposal.

Yes by all means let's kick out MPs who drink and drive, but let us also seek out and terminate the careers of those in high places who have ben guilty of drug abuse.

[Valedictoryan]

"driving offences are the "dark side" of a largely utilitarian activity"

Yes, driving deaths are unavoidable. But the figures show that there is lots of scope to reduce young driving deaths. Why aren't Tories hard on driving offences?

With both driving and drugs there's good reason to reduce risk and come down hard on law breakers, but that's not what we do. We're hard on drugs but soft on cars. I suggest the reason for this difference is that we've each probably been motoring offenders so we see them as less evil. But the truth is they're no less dangerous.

We're you to share a good spliff with good friends, I'm sure you'd see drugs users as less evil too.

[Valedictoryan]

"I've worked in the same office as drug abusers and I've seen them destroy their lives and careers."

Make a list of all the tragedies you've known. I'd be surpised if alcohol, motobikes and cars don't each account for more than drugs. I'm not trying to be callous there - but simply to get some realistic perspective.

[Andrew]

Valedictoryan - alcohol kills anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000 a year, depending on which study you believe. Drugs kill around 3000, again depending on definitions (and drug-war propaganda means you have to be careful there). Of course, if we had Holland's massive success in drug policy and resultant per-capita drugs deaths, it would be more like 250/year.

As for Blair - unreal. NHS "the pride of Britain"? It's a shambles, it's always been a shambles. The people at the sharp end work miracles, with the entire structure fighting them at every turn. Even Cuba wouldn't dream of such a ridiculously centralised structure. Has he never considered there's a reason no other European country went for such a setup?

Andrew, drunk and unusually grumpy.

[TomTom]

Fast driving, possibly even tipsy driving, well nobody would advise it, but we all know people who do it and they're not monsters.

The Law has just been tightened to include jail sentences with amendments to the RTA.................so be warned

[TomTom]

viz.

RTA

[Tory Loyalist]

We're you to share a good spliff with good friends, I'm sure you'd see drugs users as less evil too.

______________________________________________________________

Perspective, my backside. We can see exactly where you're coming from Valedictoryan, and it's evident that you are part of the problem.

I don't know whether you are another degenerate masquerading as a Tory, but if so we can do without you and your type.

On TV I'm just listening to the heart-wrenching story of working-class prostitutes whose lives have been blighted and destroyed by the cancer of drug addiction, something you evidently find "smart" and amusing.

While poverty-stricken junkies face jail and death, their rich metropolitan counterparts snort coke at trendy parties safe in the knowledge that a police raid is unlikely.

Meanwhile the money of these spoilt worthless brats (you one of them Valedictoryan?) fuels worldwide crime. Have you noticed how the really vicious crimes are almost always drug-related? A recent case in this area involved a gang of pushers who travelled 100 miles from London to burn to death with a can of petrol a fellow-pusher who had welshed on a deal.

We want no junkies in this party and no apologists for drug crime. Only once these degenerates have been shown the door can the party lead the fight against this cancer of modern society.

[Valedictoryan]

Tory Loyalist, your argument is based on belief - which explains why you become emotional when it is challenged. You have to be prepared to look at the facts.

You are lumping all drug users together and calling them "junkies". There are millions of recreational drugs users who would instantly know you are talking uninformed rubbish. You would know it too, except you haven't joined that group yet.

Andrew and I have both given numbers to back up our case. Before questioning my allegiance, can you argue against the point I'm making? That point is that we have lost perspective. We are worried about the donkey because it is in the other field. Meanwhile there's a bull in ours.

[Tory Loyalist]

You are lumping all drug users together and calling them "junkies". There are millions of recreational drugs users who would instantly know you are talking uninformed rubbish.
_____________________________________________________________

You again stand condemned in your own words.

I have already commented on your nauseating linkage of the word "recreational" to drug abuse. Recreation relates to health, fitness, self-respect, light, and life; drug abuse to crime, filth, darkness, shame and death.

You would know it too, except you haven't joined that group yet.

I have not the slightest desire to misuse drugs, nor do I socialise with people who openly admit to so doing, so at my relatively advanced age I think the qualification "yet" is unlikely to be appropriate.

Meanwhile there's a bull in ours.

Bullshit, more like.

[Mr Speaker]

Order! Order! It's not acceptable for Members to use such words. Please apologise or leave the House.

[Jack Stone]

Firstly the murder of so many women is something important enougth for the PM and others in Parliament to comment on and discuss. This is not a local issue its a national one.
Secondly I think people on this site should be very careful indeed about allegations of drug taking as some of the comments get very close to infringing the laws of libal.
I agree that Parliament should give a clear message against drugs but I think that the view some have that you will reduce drug taking by longer and tougther sentences is a nonsense.
I welcome David Cameron`s willingless to consider new policices and new ways of dealing with drug addicts and those who supply them as I do think that the present growth in drug taking shows that the present laws and policices just do not work.

[The Laughing Cavalier]

Is that the same "all the support they needed" that is being given to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?