@tommy54w @PensionSec Do you see what you have done here, Tommy?
If Labour wanted a motion backed they should have drafted one that, if capable of implementation, was not dangerous & detrimental to the NHS. I see Starmer’s name was not on it. He would have at least checked the Act in question first
If Labour wanted a motion backed they should have drafted one that, if capable of implementation, was not dangerous & detrimental to the NHS. I see Starmer’s name was not on it. He would have at least checked the Act in question first
@tommy54w @PensionSec 2/. Now these ARE the facts. The LDs v kindly didn’t make anything of the (rather gross) errors in its drafting and consequences if implemented.
Until Labour turned it into a political point scoring exercise that has backfired.
Until Labour turned it into a political point scoring exercise that has backfired.
@tommy54w @PensionSec 3/ If you open the embedded thread in the previous tweet you’ll see that it contains links to the Act itself & some random excerpts from it to demonstrate that whilst there maybe some provisions that one might seek to change (but - oh so carefully) there is plenty we need to keep
@tommy54w @PensionSec 4/. Now. I put the terms of a poorly conceived motion that would be dangerous were it capable of being effective down to the fact that MPs have been pretty overwhelmed by WA/PD/WAB stuff.
Can’t put the really quite stupid backfiring point scoring down to that.
Can’t put the really quite stupid backfiring point scoring down to that.
