Four times David Cameron misled MPs in just 15 minutes


Here’s how easy it is for David Cameron to wrongfoot the unwary.

Even This Writer wasn’t aware he answered Jeremy Corbyn’s question about therapeutic radiographers with statistics about diagnostic radiographers. They aren’t the same but would you have spotted the difference? Kudos if you did.

Mr Corbyn’s attack was backed by the Society of Radiographers which said therapeutic training places for next year will be 396 compared to 414 this year, a cut of 4.3 per cent.

Of course, living in Wales, I caught Cameron’s lie about spending on the Welsh NHS. The Mirror has the figures, which show that spending on health has increased by nine per cent since 2013-14 and spending on health and social services per person is higher than in England.

Let’s all remember that, next time Cameron tries to pull this trick!

His misquoting of Andy Burnham is stunning. Cameron said the Tories had increased funding for the NHS at a time when Burnham had claimed it would be “irresponsible”. On Twitter, Burnham killed that one stone dead: “What I actually said, @David_Cameron, was that it’s irresponsible to pay for NHS funding increase by raiding social care. And I stand by it.”

Finally, I had intended to mention that anyone whose ESA claim lapses for an appreciable period of time (The Mirror says 12 weeks or more but I’m sure a change of circumstance will trigger it) and then has to claim again will be treated as a new claimant and will receive the reduced rate of the benefit, if they are put into the work-related activity group.

That’s a moot point at the moment, though – as Cameron has yet to reinstate the cut to the same rate as Jobseekers’ Allowance, after the Lords eliminated it from the latest ‘Welfare’ Bill.

David Cameron was at his slippery worst at Prime Minister’s questions.

Faced with sustained and sombre questioning from Jeremy Corbyn on the state of the NHS, he did everything apart from give direct answers.

At first he tried to bamboozle MPs with statistics.

Then he resorted to attacks on the health service in Labour-run Wales even though Mr Corbyn was asking about NHS in England.

The Prime Minister then misquoted Andy Burnham and dismissed those with terminal illnesses as making a “lifestyle choice” by being on benefits.

Source: 4 times David Cameron misled MPs in just 15 minutes – Mirror Online

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

11 thoughts on “Four times David Cameron misled MPs in just 15 minutes

  1. Wanda Lozinska

    Even people in the Support group of ESA are reassessed after a certain time; maximum 2 years, I think.

    Also, PFI was introduced by the Tory Government under John Major.

    1. Gary Aronsson

      Do you actually understand the scale of the disaster that PFI is inevitably,and INTENTIONALLY ,going to inflict upon Britain?

      For over 20 years our infrastructure has been replaced using PFI and in each case a clause exists in the funding document that hands OWNERSHIP to the funder IF the payment schedule is not kept to.

      When,not IF,central government fails to provide adequate funding for Local Government, then they will no longer be able to keep to their respective payment schedules and these clauses will AUTOMATICALLY cause the PRIVATISATION of our infrastructure.Thus every school.road,clinic and hospital will become a privately owned asset.

      You may not believe this,you may think it fantasy,but it is ALREADY occurring and HSBC already has a very long and impressive list of former PFI funded assets that it now OWNS and RUNS PRIVATELY.

      It was to aid the future privatisation of our infrastructure that both Blair and Brown laid so much emphasis upon REPLACING existing infrastructure with something built under PFI rather than spend more modest sums on refurbishment.

      In Liverpool a new hospital will be opened within 2 years,the New Royal Hospital,which is intended to replace the already existing NEW ROYAL HOSPITAL! The NEW “New Royal” is a fraction of the size of the one it is SUPPOSED to replace.It is ALL single room.And each room will have an ensuite bathroom and a large flat screen TV. As this new hospital will replace a very much larger one,and no further building is planned and the existing Royal will then be demolished,certain questions have to be asked!

      Either people will suddenly become much healthier in a few years time,and thus no longer need state healthcare,which is not very likely! Or the NEW “New Royal” is intended to be run as a PRIVATE HOSPITAL and that is why it is being built to such a small size and very high quality!

      PFI is intended to make the Very Rich very much RICHER and yet almost nobody has noticed!

      1. charlesobrien08

        In Scotland the SNP government has bought out a couple of the PFI schemers.The only answer is to buy them out,and folk should look at the company that are the “partners” in the scheme and see who are the real shareholders,there maybe a surprise or two.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        I reckon you’re right and this is the way forward.
        Unfortunately the Tories have PF2, which is their scheme to create even more PFI projects.

  2. David Woods

    Does that must mean then that ‘baby’ Cameron made a ‘lifestyle choice’ when he departed this world rather than put up with such a slimy toad as a father?

  3. Norma Roberts

    If they do cut ESA it will actually create a disincentive to try to do some suitable work if able: Someone may be feeling a little better (new drug, treatment etc) and decide they would like to see if they are able to do some paid work. They will come off ESA, and may work for 4 months, before realising it is too much for them. If they then reclaim ESA, and go back into the WRAG group, they will be £30 pw worse off than they were when they were in the WRAG before. How on earth will this incentivise those in the WRAG, if able, to try some work!?

  4. Dez

    Cannot understand why the Camorons nose is not growing longer. Can you do the honours and doctor up a pic with a very long nose please.

  5. redangelas

    Another porkie was his claim that people with cancer would not be affected by cuts to the WRAG because they would be in in the support group.
    He fails to grasp that cuts to the WRAG would profoundly affect anyone whose cancer was cured. Not every cancer sufferer dies. After several months undergoing treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, some people are completely cured and free of cancer . During their treatment they are ill and if claiming ESA would be in the support group.
    When their treatment ends, they may technically no longer be cancer sufferers, but they will not be completely well. Likely side effects last months or years. Feeling week, getting tired easily, loss of confidence, loss of sensation in feet and or fingers are only some of the possibilities, and during this period people of working age would normally be placed in the WRAG because getting back to work in the forseeable future is a reasonable and realistic goal for them.
    To subject people whose financial position is probably already precarious (due to having been ill) to the stress of a very low income is always mean. It is doubly so when they are convalescent and in order to recover they need to rest, eat well, keep warm, exercise and look after themselves. That is not only cruel but self -defeating. It is going to prevent them recovering as rapidly as they could. “Encouraging” people who are not fit back into the workforce is always wrong and sometimes – due to increased risk of mistakes and accidents – dangerous.

  6. mohandeer

    “and dismissed those with terminal illnesses as making a “lifestyle choice” by being on benefits”.
    Er, if someone has a terminal illness, then “life” style choice is rather a salt in the wound “choice” of words. Was he deliberately goading those who are deemed terminally ill? Or perhaps he really is that gormless.

Comments are closed.