Tory Shadow Health secretary Andrew Lansley has let the cat out of the bag, explaining why Tory policy is to do NOTHING about the looming recession. According to Lansley, “Recession can be good for us”.
The man who wants to be health secretary is urging the government to extend mental health services because of an expected increase in mental health disorders by 2010 due to the economy. But on the up side, we are more likely to “smoke less, drink less alcohol, eat less rich food and spend more time at home with [our] families”. And I can’t fault the guy, if you lose your job, you do get more time with your family as well as fewer nights out and resaurant dinners.
I’m sure the sight of Lansley wandering down the dole queues whistling “always look on the bright side of life” will make everyone feel a bit better.
It’s no surprise that few of those who think unemployment is a price worth paying actually face unemployment.
editor[at]recessmonkey.com
Loading ...
As the torrents of ‘leaked’ information came spilling out last week, and in the febrile analysis this afternoon, commentators everywhere have denounced the PBR VAT reduction - and with good reason.
It’s just a pity nobody thought to turn the penny over. Had they done so, it may have dropped…
See opine-blog.com for more.
Opine Ed
www.opine-blog.com
Opine Editor said this on November 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Lansley’s offensive gaffe has been airbrushed from the link you provided…no trace of Lansley on the Tory Blue Blog.
Funny that.
At least it’s still being reported by the Standard…
fairdealphil said this on November 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
[…] I’m sure the sight of Lansley wandering down the dole queues whistling “always look on the bright side of life” will make everyone feel a bit better.” Read the full article. […]
Top Tory: “recession can be good for us” said this on November 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Unlike, of course, Polly Toynbee, who thinks that despite 3 million unemployed most people will have better lives as a result of this recession.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/25/pre-budget-report-economy1
Would you agree with her Alex? Or are such things shocking only when your political opponents and not hypocritical and not very intelligent commentators say them?
The Half-Blood Welshman said this on November 25th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I would agree with Polly Toynbee, who said that the government’s recession-busting proposals (not the recession itself) will be redistributive and therefore beneficial.
I wouldn’t agree with Andrew Lansley who, unless I’m very much mistaken, didn’t.
I agree that it would be exceedingly shocking if he had, whereas I am not surprised at all that Toynbee did, having read a bit of her stuff over the years.
CathD said this on November 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I was able to look at the Lansley article before it was taken down, and to be honest I thought you misrepresented his comments rather unfairly - that one point was very clearly seen by Lansley as a very thin silver lining while the rest of his comments acknowledged the damage of recession. He said clearly that the overall effect was going to be “human misery” and most of his article was making the point that there will be a greater demand for mental health services as a result. Which is fair enough for the shadow health secretary to point out, really.
Alison said this on November 25th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Alison, I appreciate you considered and intelligent interjection (which is quite rare around here). But there is hypocrisy in political values that suggest unemployment is a price worth paying to lower inflation while calling for better mental health services for the unemployed, while opposing the principle af the NHS that provides those services.
But you’re right that it is reasonable and even desirable for politicians to be mindful of mental health issues.
But did I misrepresent Lansley? He said people will be forced to spend more time with their families, smoke and drink less and eat less rich food. This suggestion displays a real lack of understand of people, let alone of elasticity of demand.
People don’t necessarily smoke or drink less because they have less money. It may even work the other way and a person might forego a football match ticket (where drinking is banned) to spend an afternoon watching the match on a pub.
And there is very little health benefit from the likes of Nick Clegg switching from Ocado to Tesco. But when people’s income gets to a point where it’s seriously affecting their food budgets, they are long beyond giving up dinners at Nobu.
And spending time with the family? In the 90s there were people working two or three jobs to try and keep their families afloat - people who saw very little of their loved ones.
So yes, I may have misrepresented Lansley a little, for humorous effect perhaps, but he did publicly apologise. And so he should have.
Recess Monkey said this on November 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
here’s a spirited defence of andrew lansley’s comments in the medical journal, bmj!
http://blogs.bmj.com/ebmh-talk/
..seems like he wasn’t talking rubbish after all
erikhenderson said this on November 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm