« CCHQ on red alert for autumn election | Main | Lord Gilmour has died »


Dear me, these poll results aren't good, are they?

71% are 'fairly or very' confident in the economic future?

52% say the government handled the Northern Rock situation well?

Do most members of the public have their heads in the sand? On the basis of what information do they form their opinions? Our debt-based, housing-bubble-based economy is fine and the never-incompetent government had no part in the Northern Rock mess. Yeah, right.

It's of major concern that so many people actually believe this rubbish, but it's of much more concern that nobody seems to be adequately countering the government's arguments.

Where is the official opposition?

Why is the government front bench not taking a daily bashing?

I despair.

The Labour lead is 2% less than in the last Yougov poll. The Telegraph still predicts a Labour majority of over a 100. That could be due to Lib Dems being up 2 points.

It is clear that Brown is enjoying a solid lead of 5 to 8%. This is the ideal time for him to call a general election to bury the Blair era.

On these figures Electoral calculus says the result would give Labour an increased majority of 112. We would gain an extra 6 seats. Did anyone think two years ago when Cameron was elected that we would be in this position? I sure didn't.

I hope Brown calls an election now so we can get this over with and start again. We should than focus on low tax, schools, radical reform of the NHS etc. That's me being constructive.

low tax

You need to find the money without the usual nonsense about "reducing waste". Otherwise it will give Labour a stick to beat you with - "Tory cuts" and all that.


Yes, but no nonsense about a grammar school in every town - that isn't a vote winner.

radical reform of the NHS

Again, specifics required without making it seem like you'll be closing hospitals, firing nurses, etc.


I hope Brown calls an election now so we can get this over with and start again.

I doubt his lead would hold up that well. After Blair called the 2005 election the Tories did better than most polls predicted at the time he made his announcement. Also Mike S at politicalbetting has made a good point that the Tories gain support when Cameron is on the main TV news/in the papers/etc. An election would require him to get more coverage than he usually does out of parity.

Brown has lost his best chance (should have jumped after being PM). He might call one this Autumn, but I think he's dithered too much to do it - unless he says something at the conference.

Looking at the 2005 election results Con 33%, Lab 36%, Lib-Dem 22% it's clear that Labour's gain has come from the Lib-Dem vote.

Does anyone know how many seats the Lib-Dems hold in Labour areas and in Conservative areas?
How many seats do the Conservatives stand to gain from a collapse of the Lib-Dem vote?

Immediately before the 1970 General Election, Enoch Powell made a speech encouraging people not to be fooled into thinking that the forthcoming poll was “no more than a presidential contest of personalities, and that they are just being invited to decide if they prefer the country and the economy, which will be much the same anyhow, to be presided over by a man with a pipe or a man with a boat.” By reference to the horrors that socialism had inflicted in the course of the previous Parliament, and how this would continue for the worse if Harold Wilson was re-elected – “a point where the best of the nation in all walks of life would give up the unequal struggle and either acquiesce in the managed uniformity of a socialist state or go where they will be free” – he explained how the decision would not be between two individuals but between two irrevocably, irreversibly different futures for Britain.

Leaving aside the fact that there is no obvious present day successor to Powell as an orator – John Redwood has the intellectual command but not the vocal command, Graham Brady has the principle but not the profile, Patrick Mercer has shown questionable judgment for someone otherwise ideally placed to take the fight to Labour – anyone seeking to make such a speech today would in theory be speaking the plain truth but would risk lacking all credibility in doing so for one reason. Namely, the lack of any clear sign that our current leadership aspires to make fundamental changes to the way in which the country has been run under Labour, let alone shows how it would do so.

And perhaps that explains why, in the face of how overtaxed, overregulated, overgoverned and badly governed we have been over the last 10 years, this poll still gives the perpetrators of this mismanagement a 6% lead, evidently suggesting that those polled would prefer the country and the economy, which will be much the same anyhow, to be presided over by Brown rather than Cameron (I’m afraid any inspiration to find an update for Powell’s masterful pipe/boat putdown of Wilson and Heath has deserted me at this late hour).

UK Elect gives

Lab 385 +31
Con 190 - 7
LD 41 -22

I can't believe the Labour government have got away with the Northern Rock fiasco. Do people really understand what has happened? Labour has tried to present itself as the saviour riding to the rescue of savers, and unfortunately it seems to have worked. The Conservative party should have done more to nail Labour over this one. Pity parliament was out, otherwise a different picture may have emerged.

If Brown calls an early election its ok by me, after all he is only going to gain an extra 2 years if he wins, so its worth having a go at him now in spite of what the polls say.

to answer Dave Bartlett. A swing of 5% from LD to Con brings 18 seats, a swing of 5% to Lab brings another 12 seats.

LD are also vulnerable to SNP gains. If the SNP achieved what the polls say they would gain 9 including Ming! Highly unlikely as 4 way splits will favour incumbents, but they could lose 3 of them.

33 is probably on the high side so factoring in incumbency still leaves a realistic target of 20 losses.

The key is "its the economy stupid". The real state of the economy is not recognised by voters.

So far the effects of the mortgage rises have not bitten deep enough and people have been able to expand their mortgages to finance current expenditure.

Through 2008 and 2009 people's finances will generally get worse.

I think that, when the election does come and people are asked to place a mark next to the candidate of their choice, many people will think twice about supporting a Labour candidate. I just don't think that they'll be able to bring themselves to return Labour again. Perhaps I am naive, but that's what I think (and hope). Lord help us if I'm wrong!

I'm definitely of the "Labour will win but not with an increased majority" camp.

Things could get sticky if Brown goes for an election and Cameron plays the 'cut and run' card and it works.

Rather like Major and Euro 96, if England win the Rugby World Cup, Brown would most probably call an election. Sadly, but fortunately for us, England shan't get further than the quarter finals, and with the onset of winter and lingering F&M, Cons everywhere can rest assured their conference will not be overshadowed.


Re 11.15pm update:

More people are confident of their finances now than in 2003??

What is wrong with people?!

I join Mike H @ 21:18 in deepest and utter despair.

We cannot afford to lose seats at the coming election, be it in the autumn or spring - it will raise serious questions about Cameron and cause widespread disunity in the parliamentary party. Voters do not vote for disunited parties.

It appears that the public think that Brown is a figure of solidarity who can be trusted to steer the economy through its present difficulties and any trouble that lies ahead. In the same way that Labour were not trusted with the economy until the mid-nineties, the Tories will not be trusted until Brown has been fully discredited; and that may not happen for some time.

According to UK Elect, the uniform two-party swing from Labour that would bring us a majority of 1 is around 6.8%. We cannot achieve this by continuing to languish on 32-34%. Labour have to do badly, yes, but at the same time, the Tories need to be at least 10 points ahead to have an overall majority. It is almost impossible for us to win if we poll less than 40%. Labour would have to do as badly as they did in 1983 for that to be sufficient.

On the bright side, though, it does appear that conference coverage has done little for Ming Duncan-Smith. They could lose half their seats polling 16%.

On the bright side, though, it does appear that conference coverage has done little for Ming Duncan-Smith. They could lose half their seats polling 16%.

Ming Campbell's attempts at getting passionate in his speech on Thursday were cringe-worthy in the extreme, and probably on its own gave the Tories a percentage point or two.

That was the best thing to go our way since Cameron's crime message!

David Cameron! The electorate's not going to gamble on a callow toff characterized by sham and opportunism in the public mind - one who all but admits in public: "We can't argue for things we believe in because it looks bad"! - when they can vote for a proven Prime Minister of apparent substance and gravitas with decades of experience. The election IS over.
Hilariously, most Tories are realizing this, deep down. But they also know that to topple Cameron would prove just as disastrous! This decade is confronting the Tories not with a challenging opportunity, but with a road map to the death of Conservatism.

Raj - on tax we should not accept Labour's lies that less tax = less for public services. Less tax can lead to increased government revenue and we should say so.

On schools we should argue for school vouchers so that all parents can have choice rather than just the rich. On health we should argue for a social insurance scheme similar to Germany's. The NHS is not fit for purpose and we should say so.

During an election Cameron will get more publicity. However so will Brown. Also is it good that Cameron will get more publicity given that polls give him a negative approval rating? He's now a liabilty not an asset. Even if we did have a good campaign which is far from assured we could still well lose. Labour in 87 was thought to have won the campaign but of course they lost the election. The fact that we are even talking about making up and gaining crucial support during an election campaign speaks volumes in itself. We should be in top position before it even begins.

"many people will think twice about supporting a Labour candidate. I just don't think that they'll be able to bring themselves to return Labour again"

Andy Jones, I think there may be a lot of truth in what you say. We always must bear in mind that the average voter doesn't follow politics at a deeper level and is more likely to mistake headlines with fact and to do something unpredictable like "Giving the other lot a go" Thats why as well as pushing policy the Conservative party should be hammering home the "Change" and "Stale Labour" messages.

Edison, strange isn't it? But look back to 2003,share prices fell very heavily that year they've gained almost 100% since,house prices are still rising. It gives people a sense of security.Personally I don't share it at all. I suspect whoever wins the election will have to make very significant cuts in public expenditure before they even begin to think about cutting tax.

A couple of - relatively - 'upbeat' points....

Voting intention torward Labour has gone down:

July 41
August 41
September 39

Cameron on 'Would make the best PM':

July 19
August 20
September 20

No bottoming out of Cameron support as such, just a shift of Don't Knows towards Brown.

And the Don't Knows are easily swayed.

Somebody should make the case for wanting the LOSE the next election: the economy will crash, the Libs will go into coalition with Brown (this will finish them off in the long-term) and we can get our act together on the ground. DC is still young.

I was under the immpression that this poll would be disasterous. Considering the last couple of weeks, it's not too bad. 5 points isn't enough for Brown to go.

Time for bed, NHS action day in the morning.

I just cannot believe that Labour candidates will not be punished by voters for a completely unnecessary election - just over two years since the last General!

"There are also strong arguments which mitigate against an autumn election, and badly need to be taken into account. The weightiest of these concerns Scotland, where Labour is paying the price for the assiduous work done in cultivating middle England.

To give one example, Worcester voters may have found Gordon Brown's opportunistic meeting with Margaret Thatcher extremely reassuring and a reason to vote Labour.

However, north of the border, the Brown/Thatcher alliance has had the opposite effect. Scots still remember the poll-tax, the economic disasters of the 1980s and Gordon Brown's own virulent denunciations of Mrs Thatcher at the time.

Alex Salmond and his Scottish National Party are ready to exploit this and there are already plans to use photographs of Gordon Brown and Mrs Thatcher posing together outside Downing Street in its election literature.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Labour Party is in crisis. The useless Jack McConnell has been quietly disposed of as leader in a quiet coup of the type that used to be engineered by the Kremlin in client states in Eastern Europe. Nobody knows whether his replacement, Wendy Alexander (a high-ranking member of the Brownite nomenclatura) is any good.

The truth is that calling an election this autumn risks a bloodbath north of the border which would give a massive boost to the independence movement and make the break-up of the United Kingdom more likely than ever before.

The second problem is Europe. Most inconveniently for Gordon Brown, any election campaign would be interrupted by the European Summit in Lisbon on October 18 and 19. This is the meeting which is due to stitch up the final details of the controversial European Treaty.

Gordon Brown is fully aware that his willingness to sign up to this document is deeply unpopular and the last thing he needs is for Europe to become a raging issue in the final days of an election campaign.

So the issue is finely balanced. The wisest judges to whom I have spoken say that the most likely outcome is that Gordon Brown will end up by backing away. At heart, he is a very cautious man." Peter Oborne, Daily Mail

Why is it - everytime there is a poll showing a Labour lead Conservative supporters start to look for problems in the leadership - the polls do not reflect the outcome of a general election necessarily & there is absolutely no way that Brown will call an election before 2009 / 2010 - not only can he not financially afford to at the moment - but it's only 2 weeks ago that the Conservatives were level pegging with Labour in the polls - far too risky for him - he wants more than a few months as leader - his ego will make him wait till the bitter end - Conservatives need to stay loyal to the leadership and stop making headlines that show disunity !!

Voter's can either reward Mr. Brown for ten years of broken promises and vote for another five years of talk.

Or they can vote Conservative, to support a party that’s taken a stand and is committed to action on the issues that matter to hard working Britons.

Hardworking families – honest people who do the right thing, who respect others, who provide for their children, who look after their homes and contribute to their local communities are being taken for granted by Mr. Brown. People are fed up that their hard work is not recognised or rewarded.

Pensioners worry not just about going out at night but during the day because crime is out of control.

And parents worry that their kids can’t learn in class because there’s too little school discipline.

And all this despite Mr. Brown’s huge, stealthy tax increases.
Imagine another five years of it. If you’re thinking: “We shouldn’t have to settle for this”, then I say to you today: don’t. Britain is the fourth richest country in the world. We can afford world class public services – the good, local schools and clean hospitals that hard working Britons deserve.

There is a better way.

By rewarding people who do the right thing – who play by the rules - we will build a brighter, better future for our country.

That’s why, six months ago, my Party published a Timetable for Action - a bold public commitment to get a grip on the tough issues facing Britain today.

We will reward hardworking Britons who do the right thing by giving them value for money and lower taxes. We will restore discipline in our classrooms by giving head teachers control over their schools.

We will cut crime by each year putting 5000 more police officers – real police officers – on our streets and introducing tougher sentences for burglars and drug dealers.

We will reduce immigration by setting an annual limit on the number of people who can come and settle in Britain.

Some people say we shouldn’t talk about difficult issues like the abuse of our asylum system and those travellers who stick two fingers up to the law.

But we cannot make Britain a better place if we sweep difficult issues under the carpet.

Everyone knows you won’t fix a problem if you aren’t even prepared to discuss it.

I’m not prepared to appease special interest groups because I believe passionately in fair play.

We are all British and we should all have to play by the same rules.

Nor will I be distracted from doing what I believe is best for Britain by the smirking politics of Mr Brown or the woolly thinking of the Liberal Democrats.

So on each of these issues - on rewarding those who work hard and have contributed to our country, on schools, on hospitals, on crime and on immigration – we have a detailed, published Timetable for Action so you can hold us to account.

Mr. Brown is already secretly grinning about the prospect of his victory.

Well the Conservatives offered the above last time, word for word my friends - it was rubbish then, and it's still largely the same rubbish now.

Labour will win the next election. Not because they are smart. They are just less stupid. The electorate are anything but stupid.

I am genuinely surprised to see how this poll is being reported.

It is just a six point lead (two down on ICM) from a pollster that doesn't weight on likelihood to vote.

The reaction of the Labour MP on political betting.com was disappointment when the number came out and Mike Smithson's lead today argues this will dampen election speculation. We have been absent from the media recently which is about to change.

Expect a conference boost for Labour but we should see recovery after a robust Tory conference where Cameron will firm up policy, rejecting much of Gummer-Goldsmith.

YouGov has been showing wild fluctuations recently and in August recorded a 7 point Lab-Con swing in just two weeks. This poll won't cheer Gordon like ICM did.

"Do most members of the public have their heads in the sand?"

No, the members of "Heir to Blair's Conservatives" have their heads in the sand. The polls send a clear message: the voter don't want Cameron and/or his experiment. Now do what should have been done long ago.

"I can't believe the Labour government have got away with the Northern Rock fiasco. Do people really understand what has happened?"

I am sorry I can, and it only needs to be explained with one word 'Osborne'.

The problems the Conservatives are now facing are two years in the making, when Osborne has been AWOL from his task of holding Brown's economic recorded to account, with the result that Brown went to his coronation with 'the best Chancellor' ringing in his ears, a platform he has built on as PM, the cost of this failure is now seen in the poor polls for the Conservatives. But having been AWOL for the last two years Osborne has been AWOL with Darling in place at N011, other than adopting Labour's spending plans, which in its self shows a lack of intellectual rigor in the Shadow Treasury team.

So not surprisingly when there is a problem with the economy, the Conservatives having failed to make any critique of Government policy, and failed to put down any markers other than being camp followers of Labour policy, the Conservatives find themselves in no position to benefit from Government economic incompetence, and seen a band wagon jumpers when they do eventually make a critical comment in regards to Northern Rock. .

I would add one further point, to be even the most lowly office boy in the financial services industry one needs to have passed some FSA exams to just pick up the phone. . Yet here the Conservatives are asking people to put all their economic eggs in the basket of George Osborne who read modern history at Oxford, spent a short spell as a freelance journalist, and spent some time at the Conservative Research Department, let alone the fact that he carries no political weight, has no gravitas, and looks like a startled rabbit when interviewed.

So tell me is anyone at all surprised the Conservatives are taking a beating where economic competence is concerned?

Looking at the "Countdown to Brown" set of articles under the category cloud is interesting. In summary, they suggest that Brown was going to be considerably less popular and that the only factor disguising the New Labour project for the sham it really was all along was Blair.

It may not be unreasonable to conclude that our current leadership took it for granted that the wheels would come off the Labour wagon as soon as Blair went, and held off on attacking Brown and his record day in day out during his first few weeks because they thought there was no need and that they may as well save themselves the effort and divert it to the promotion of all these trendy new policy ideas.

How wrong they appear to have been.

Nearly all of us underestimated Brown, David. Me certainly included.

I would be very surprised if Brown called an election this year. There are still too many unknowns, too many people undecided which way to go.

If people are more confident on their economy now than they were in 2003, then that highlights a greater failure in primary school mathematics than we all first thought.

What is interesting for me is that the Lib Dems have not got very much bounce from their coneference - not that ayone was paying any attention.

I wonder how much bounce they would really get in a GE.

Why are'nt the Tories attacking this government's record vigorously? Why have we let this slide in the polls happen? Too busy coming up with ideas on charging hard working people more for their hard earned holidays or for not putting their rubbish in the right containers.Multinational companies should be the ones targeted with enviromental taxes with regulations to ensure it's not the man in the street who picks up the bill.Yes,let's recycle,yes tax gas guzzling cars mainly driven by people who dont really need them but don't alienate everyone else who wants decent hospitals,schools and crime free streets.Why has this great party lost touch with the people? It truly has.Maggie had an instinctive sense of what the British people were thinking.Mr Cameron has the instinct to know what focus groups are thinking.There is a big difference.Gordon Brown will win with a landslide and he really does not deserve to even get back into office.What are the Tories doing about it?

Leaving aside our own contribution to the current political mess, I just can't believe the public have warmed to Brown.

Rather than question the judgment of Cameron, I question the judgment of the British people. I say bring on a general election, lets get it over with. Then the people will get what they deserve, Gordon Brown, and I can get on with leaving the country and going somewhere that is peopled by a slightly less masochistic people.

Dave Bartlett @2210 last night said "Looking at the 2005 election results Con 33%, Lab 36%, Lib-Dem 22% it's clear that Labour's gain has come from the Lib-Dem vote' Others posters have looked only at this too

I don't know how many times I have to say this but there has been little movement amongst the '3-parties+others'. What has happened with Blair's departure is that the Labour voters who couldn't stand Blair and lurked in the "Don't Know +Won't say +won't vote' categories have come back to what they regard as "proper Labour". and they'll be harder than most to shift.

This is why going for the soft centre ground was a stupid strategy. More people vote AGAINST someone in elections than FOR them so constant promises to tax as much, spend as much, whack people with 'green' taxes, not change the schools much,leave the chaotic NHS alone etc gives nobody anything to vote for or AGAINST. If we're going to have the same policy - the argument goes - we might as well stick with whom we know.

There's precious little time to put it right now but at least- please - will the party make a start?

The last batch of postings are getting there and I applaud them but it's a pity that those of us who said Cameron was on the wrong track months ago on this blog were called all sorts of names - UKIP supporters, "trolls" being two of the more polite.

You see Yorks Tory this is exactly why we lost general elections because so many Tory supporters have this attitude of 'it's not us who are wrong, it's the people'. This is nonsense - in a democracy the people are the ones who are correct and they vote for the party which they feel will serve the country best.

I can understand perfectly well why people dislike and don't trust Cameron. I can't say I like him myself. Personally the next GE can't come soon enough and then we can get the worst out of the way, get a new leader and go back to being a Conservative party again.

Christina, Michael


What a silly comment Michael. "I don't like Cameron so I want Brown to win the election".

You, and not people like me, are the reason we keep losing. These nutters who keep calling for the real Conservative Party to emerge or a real leader to appear, clearly have no understanding of our party history.

Let's see how popular Brown is in six months time when it becomes clear that the Northern Rock debacle wasn't just a temporary blip but an early warning of the economic hurricane heading our way.

Yesterday I posted that I felt we should be attempting to bring justice to the pensioners who have lost their company pensions and for whom the parliamentary ombudsman has directed the Government to
provide support - a direction which has been refused by Brown despite the cost being estimated at no more than @£24M pa.

It seemed to me that this support of natural justice would be an immediate vote catcher, apart from needing to be on the "to do list" of any party of conviction politicians which cares about its electorate.

The following is from a full page article in today's Telegraph quoting Peter Hain:

""The Government will address the "scandal" of pensioners left destitute when their employers went bust with a multi-million pound rescue package, says Peter Hain, the Work and Pensions Secretary.

Mr Hain promises to bring "justice" to the thousands of people who have lost their retirement savings.

"They have been scandalously robbed of their pensions," he says. "I feel very strongly about it, I have talked to many of them, in many cases they have contributed for more than 30 years and they have nothing, it's one of the real scandals of our time."""

Do I believe that they will deliver anything for these people? Absolutely not. Has that stopped the electorate voting for the Labour party in the past? Absolutely not.

So here's the positive message. If we can just start to engage with the electorate and begin to talk about the things that matter to them instead of windmills and fines for visiting their local supermarket -and justice for these poor pensioners is a natural subject for such an engagement, along with shabby treatment of servicemen, immigration etc etc - then we will win.

There is nothing new about these key topics - this is no "Eureka" moment - they appear on these threads many times every day posted by concerned activists and long term Conservative voters who know perfectly well what the people in the street are worried about and want to hear, but are increasingly frustrated that we seem to be somehow incapable of engaging with them.

So we will win, as soon as those we have chosen to lead the party learn to listen and act on what they hear.

But time is beginning to run out, and we do need to start.

Soon please.

Football clubs who keep sacking their managers win nowt, Manchester City and Newcastle United being prime examples.

Conservative Party please take note, stick with Cameron and support him.

George Osborne has missed too many open goals to be kept as Shadow Chancellor however, and is clearly out of his depth.

It's a pity Ken Clarke can't be brought back, he would wipe the floor with Darling particularly as the economy deteriorates.

A very insightful article in today's Times by Mathew Paris which I hope is on everyone's desk in CCHQ - the title, which includes the words "The fatal flaw of David Cameron" is a little misleading - this excellent and perceptive article contains advice for DC which, if embraced, could transform our chances in the next election, whenever that might be.

Very much agree with the poster @ 18:33. On the whole I support Cameron but even if I didn't I can't see what anyone interested in the success of the Conservative party could hope to achieve by ditching him. We have no outstanding heir apparent and it would inevitably lead to a sustained period of introspection and infighting.
I do find it irritating to be lectured by UKIP supporters like Jorgen who do not have the best interests of our party at heart at all.

I work in the money markets and I know for a fact that Lloyds had agreed a takeover deal with northern rock three days before the BoE bailout, the FSA had approved it, the BoE had approved it and the TREASURY blocked the deal. People need to know this!!!!!

"Nearly all of us underestimated Brown, David. Me certainly included."

Understandable perhaps due to blind tribalism of activists, but unfortunately for most Tory party members here, wishful thinking overtook rational analysis.

Almost all bad news has been excused in a delusional way to fit what you would like to be true, rather than being taken on face value and acted upon objectively.

I believe that victory *was* possible this time, but that time has clearly passed. However, the lesson going forward is that no matter what happens to the economy etc, victory next time will be *harder* still as the next general election result is not looking like it will continue the positive trend of chipping away at Labour's majority.

So the success of Cameroonism will be helping to begin the image change, but this is likely to be offset by reversing the increasingly better results achieved under Hague and Howard.

I just wish Cameron had appointed Davis as deputy leader to achieve visible 'and theory' balance.

Greetings from the Labour Party conference-I'm in Bournemouth for my newspaper.
The brethren who've made it here so far seem divided on an election - about half of these I've spoken to want Brown to hold an election to kill off the Tories once and for all. They argue, and I agree with them, that if Labour increases its majority, it will already have won the subsequent election because of Tory inertia in the north and Scotland.
Others seem to believe that cautious Brown won't gamble and will delay. One Labour MP is predicting May 2009.
Brown will do be very populist this week. For instance in tom orrow's News of the World he's announcing a rolling programme of ward and hospital closures to allow MRSA to be eradicated once and for all.

Graham Dines
Political Editor & Lobby Correspondent
East Anglian Daily Times

Thanks Graham for the update from the southern front!

'Football clubs who keep sacking their managers win nowt, Manchester City and Newcastle United being prime examples.'

Yes,it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are crap teams.

""For instance in tomorrow's News of the World he's announcing a rolling programme of ward and hospital closures to allow MRSA to be eradicated once and for all.""

Did I read this correctly?

Close hospitals and wards to eradicate MRSA?

To be followed by - close all schools to finally put an end to poor teaching, and disband the Army, Navy and RAF to remove all these appalling homes the servicemen and their families have been forced to live in.

If this comment on hospital and ward closures is true what a wonderful open goal to take advantage of.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker