Talk:Andrew Lansley

CBE

Why does Mr Lansley have a CBE? Presumably whatever he was honoured for deserves a mention.... --123.120.152.229 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

School

Have removed description "fee paying" from before Brentwood School
When Lansley was there, Brentwood School was a "Direct Grant" school, with almost all pupils' fees being paid by their Local Authority.
Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

His Hair

I've just been watching Lansley on the news. Can't remember a thing he was saying (he is a little dull and smug) but I was rather taken by his fantastic hairstyle. I notice that the sweep goes the opposite way to the photo on this page. Either he's changed his cut and swung suddenly to the right or the picture on this page is inverted. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an awfully thin entry....

..for an SoS.... DDM1 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

NHS

Hasn't he come under heavy attack about his proposals for the NHS with doctors saying it will destroy the NHS ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.215.210 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rap

I undid the revision as this is an important piece of the backlash against the proposed NHS reforms. This shouldn’t be sidelined under 'in popular culture' and given the brush off. Yes the song is offensive but we can’t ignore it on those grounds. Oh as for 'badly spelt' - corrected the two typos.Prophesy (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the rap video has been shown as part of Have I Got News For You (one of the most watched TV shows related to news). It was also spoken about on Radio 4's "The Now Show", where they used the phrase "Andrew Lansley t****r" about six times at various points during the show. It's definitely notable and probably as well known than anything else Lansley has done as an MP or Minister. 86.166.109.230 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection

The recently semiprotection of the article was rather more than was needed: In the first place only one anon was making unproductive edits; so the problem could have been dealt with by a block. And the problem edits were not vandalism but a content dispute by a person who didn’t know about the talk page, consensus, edit summaries, and reliable sources. (See their post at the Help desk.) I have changed the paragraph in question to more accurately reflect the source. Hopefully this will help satisfy the desire for a change. I recommend lifting protection. —teb728 t c 07:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wealth?

I have removed that section because I feel it is pointless trivial information. Some person has deliberately made a point of going on every Conservative Cabinet member's page and put 'X person's wealth is estimated at £x-number', I don't see any point to have such trivial information which is why I removed it. I feel it is an attempt at 'class warring' because of the misguided stereotype of 'Tory millionaires'. Many Labour MPs and trade unionists are millionaires but there is no 'wealth' sections on their articles. I will seek a 3rd opinion if you feel necessary. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)