Talk:Andrew Lansley

'Compassion' for the Elderly

Lansley's current promotional exercise to ensure 'the elderly' receive 'compassion' and 'retain dignity' from NHS staff seems somewhat odd: a)he is Ageist enough to believe patients should be subdivided by age, and b) that 'compassion' is a substitute for competence. Even to refer to 'elderly' patients breaches their rights to be treated as 'patients', and his suggestion that 'volunteers' could be used to make sure they were fed whilst in hospital is a disgusting attempt to marginalise their rights. Does anyone know if he has teamed up with Ian Duncan Smith, and intends to recruit the unemployed as 'volunteer bed pan washers'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.108.5 (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dreadful isn't it, 'Inversion Syndrome', the head turns round the wrong way - maybe its contagious, and that's why they all talk out of their......partings?

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)

Your original edit summary was "Pointless trivial information, this seems like a 'class attack' to me."
What it "seems like" to you, is clearly PoV, so has no place in Wikipedia.
Please note, I did not add the information, it was originally added on 9 October 2009 by User:Nunquam Dormio, so has been in this article for nearly two years, before you decided to take issue with this information.
Despite your claim, it is also not "trivial", the wealth of a senior cabinet minister is clearly of encyclopaedic interest.
As far as I can ascertain, no-one, including Lansley or his aides, has questioned the accuracy of this information.
The fact that "there is no 'wealth' sections" (sic) on the pages of "many Labour MPs and trade unionists" is no reason to remove this information from this page - Wikipedia does not work on a lowest common denominator basis.
Provided your information is properly sourced, you are, of course, free to add similar information on the pages of Labour MPs and trade unionists.

Wikipedia has a fundamental principle of assume good faith, but a quick browse through your recent edits shows a dominance of right wing subjects, and a remarkable number of accusations of PoV both by, and against, you. In Talk:Paul Dacre you even state "because they don't like my political views/stance." by which you are clearly admitting you have a PoV.

If we follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you were BOLD, which is fine; I then reverted, which is equally acceptable; so the subject should then have come to discussion here. Instead of this, you reverted before any discussion.
I will, therefore, restore the article to how it was, before the BRD cycle started, and await others' opinions.
Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with above, an MP's 'wealth' is not of encyclopedic interest. I tried to add the house prices of trade union leader's extravangant homes to WP articles and they were removed informing me they were not NPOV and violate BLP rules, surely this same principle applies to MP's 'wealth'? Christian1985 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It seems to me that the current mention is reasonable as it stands, although I would suggest moving it to the end of the section. It is a simple statement of fact phrased neutrally, and while a net worth of 700k doesn't sounds particularly noteworthy, it was notable enough to be mentioned in a mainstream news article. The article on John Edwards seems to do a good job of treating the wealth of a politician neutrally -- it's mentioned that he was making 500k at one point, but it's not the focus of the article by any means. I would also add that simple statements of wealth or income are in general more useful than saying "... lives in a X million dollar home". I don't think there's any reason why a neutral statement like the one here could not appear on any politicians article, unless the article is very short, in which case it would be giving undue weight to the fact.—A13ean (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)