THE Conservatives have agreed to stop circulating a leaflet in deputy presiding officer Rosemary Butler’s constituency after claiming the future of Newport’s Royal Gwent Hospital was under threat.
Tory candidate for Newport West put out the leaflet, with the headline “Save The Royal Gwent”, and a picture of him standing outside its main entrance. He said that Labour was planning £1bn of cuts to the NHS, which would put the hospital’s future in doubt.
He also accused Ms Butler, standing again for election as a Labour candidate, of supporting a planned move of the hospital’s critical care unit to a new hospital in Cwmbran, despite her having consistently opposed it.
Following a complaint from Ms Butler’s agent, the leaflet has since been withdrawn and a written undertaking given that the claim would not be made again.
Ms Butler said she was “astounded” by the claims, adding: “I have consistently opposed the closure of the critical care unit, and have made my views known to the health minister Edwina Hart and to constituents who have written to me.
“I have been pressing for some time for more Assembly Government investment in the hospital and a phased redevelopment programme will now start shortly – hardly an indication that the Royal Gwent is being run down.”
A letter to Ms Butler’s election agent by Mr Williams’ agent, Alan Mazey, said: “I am willing to accept your assertion of Rosemary Butler’s position on the critical care unit and therefore I undertake that no more of that leaflet will be used and that statement will not be repeated in any other leaflets during this campaign.”
In 2007 one of the most potent campaign tactics used by Labour’s opponents related to fears that hospitals serving large sections of rural Wales faced closure or downgrading. All such plans were halted following the coalition deal between Labour and Plaid.
Fooling the people
A cunning verbal trick was used by Welsh Assembly former Agricultural minister to disguise the fact that TB in cattle has fallen without a cull. She confused the numbers of herds with the number of cattle to give a false impression of an increasing problem.
The levels of cattle slaughtered has fallen to the level in 2006 - without a single badger being shot.
Adjective grenade
Chances to get an oral question in at Prime Ministers' Question Time are rare. Today was only my second this parliament. The aim is to briefly deliver a verbal hand grenade, stuffed with adjectives. I do not think the House or country has woken to the full repercussions of Fukushima. That is why I asked:
Q12. [52619] Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Does not the nightmare of Fukushima mean that the planned renaissance of nuclear power will be stillborn? Should not the Prime Minister be planning for a future that will be free of the cost, fear and anxiety of nuclear power, and rich in renewables that are British, that are green, and that are inexhaustible and safe?
The Prime Minister: Of course we have to learn the lessons from Fukushima but, as I have said before, that is a different reactor design in a different part of the world with different pressures. The British nuclear industry has a good safety record, but, clearly, it has to go on proving that, and doing so in the light of the new evidence, such as it is, that comes out of Japan. That is what must happen, and the head of the nuclear inspectorate will do exactly that.
Big Con
Earlier I had a chance to question a Cabinet Officer Minister.
9. Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What recent estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of jobs in the voluntary sector as a result of reductions in public expenditure in the next 12 months. [52591]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd): Unfortunately, the sector cannot be immune from cuts, for reasons that have been explained. That would have been exactly the same under a Labour Government. We are trying to help the sector to manage a difficult transition, while shaping what we believe are significant opportunities for the sector, not least in terms of more public service delivery.
Paul Flynn: Cutting charities reduces our ability to help one another and undermines the structures of neighbourliness that form our big society. That is the opinion of the chair of the Charity Commission, who knows about these things. Is not the Government’s big society a big confidence trick?
Mr Hurd: Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman has been around enough to know that the size of the deficit means that the sector, which receives almost £13 billion a year of taxpayers’ money, cannot be immune from the reduction in public spending, and that it would not have been immune, as the Opposition have admitted, under the ghastly scenario of a Labour Government. We have to be realistic about that. We are trying to minimise the short-term damage through initiatives such as the transition fund, and to create the building blocks for a better future for the sector, not least through more incentives for giving and more opportunities for it to deliver public services.
Comments