Monday, 30 August 2010
Friday, 27 August 2010
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Open wide for public service destruction
July 6 2010 marked the 50th anniversary of the death of the great Welsh socialist Aneurin Bevan, the father of the NHS.
Just six days after the anniversary, Tory Health Minister Andrew Lansley (above) announced radical government plans which, if carried out, will mark the end of Bevan's great, humane creation in all but name.
The extent of the reforms, which allow all hospitals to leave public ownership as well as scrapping primary health care trusts and the revenue cap on private patients, shocked many political observers. They were a clear breach of Lansley's own pre-election pledge not to introduce any major structural reform of the NHS.
But those who appreciate that the "progressive" Con-Dem government bats for capital and not for the ordinary British people would not have been surprised in the least.
In January, the Daily Telegraph revealed that Lansley, then shadow health secretary, had received £21,000 for the running of his private office from private equity tycoon John Nash, chairman of Care UK and several other health companies.
In company documents Nash, who also gave the Tories £60,000 in September 2009, enthused over "recent policy statements by the opposition Conservative Party in the UK which have substantially strengthened their commitment to more open market reform to allow new providers of NHS services and for greater freedom for patients to choose their GP and hospital provider."
For privateers like Nash the trouble with Labour was that after the fall of Tony Blair the "open market reform" of the NHS was proceeding too slowly.
Now Nash and his fellow private healthcare providers have got the fast-track "reforming" government they want. But for pro-privatisation politicians like Lansley there remains a problem.
Despite the relentless propaganda of neoliberal think tanks and NHS-bashing columns by right-wing writers such as Janet Daley, Simon Heffer and Richard Littlejohn, the NHS remains an enormously popular institution. It's loved not just by socialists and social democrats, but by Conservative voters too.
If the government announced that the NHS was to be privatised en bloc there'd be a huge public outcry. So Lansley needs to present his reforms as "liberating" the NHS and achieve privatisation through the backdoor.
The government is clearly using the destruction of NHS dentistry as its model.
From the 1990s onwards, private dental chains started buying up NHS practices and converting them to private-only practices. The value of private dentistry grew from £289m in 1994-95 to just under £2bn in 2001-2. And costs for treatments soared - on average private treatments are four times more expensive than those offered on the NHS.
Millions of Britons, unable to pay the higher costs and without an NHS practice in their area, simply stopped going to the dentist altogether. As a result tooth decay, mouth cancer and other oral diseases rose sharply.
As I highlighted in the New Statesman in 2005, "A predominantly private dental service inevitably means a two-tier service: good mouths and gleaming smiles for the rich; disease, tooth decay and emergency extraction dentistry for the rest."
What we are heading for if the coalition gets its way is a predominantly private health service. As in dentistry, that will mean a two-tier service - good health and prompt treatment for the rich, longer waiting times and a second-class service for the rest.
How Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave.
Neil Clark Morning Star
Just six days after the anniversary, Tory Health Minister Andrew Lansley (above) announced radical government plans which, if carried out, will mark the end of Bevan's great, humane creation in all but name.
The extent of the reforms, which allow all hospitals to leave public ownership as well as scrapping primary health care trusts and the revenue cap on private patients, shocked many political observers. They were a clear breach of Lansley's own pre-election pledge not to introduce any major structural reform of the NHS.
But those who appreciate that the "progressive" Con-Dem government bats for capital and not for the ordinary British people would not have been surprised in the least.
In January, the Daily Telegraph revealed that Lansley, then shadow health secretary, had received £21,000 for the running of his private office from private equity tycoon John Nash, chairman of Care UK and several other health companies.
In company documents Nash, who also gave the Tories £60,000 in September 2009, enthused over "recent policy statements by the opposition Conservative Party in the UK which have substantially strengthened their commitment to more open market reform to allow new providers of NHS services and for greater freedom for patients to choose their GP and hospital provider."
For privateers like Nash the trouble with Labour was that after the fall of Tony Blair the "open market reform" of the NHS was proceeding too slowly.
Now Nash and his fellow private healthcare providers have got the fast-track "reforming" government they want. But for pro-privatisation politicians like Lansley there remains a problem.
Despite the relentless propaganda of neoliberal think tanks and NHS-bashing columns by right-wing writers such as Janet Daley, Simon Heffer and Richard Littlejohn, the NHS remains an enormously popular institution. It's loved not just by socialists and social democrats, but by Conservative voters too.
If the government announced that the NHS was to be privatised en bloc there'd be a huge public outcry. So Lansley needs to present his reforms as "liberating" the NHS and achieve privatisation through the backdoor.
The government is clearly using the destruction of NHS dentistry as its model.
From the 1990s onwards, private dental chains started buying up NHS practices and converting them to private-only practices. The value of private dentistry grew from £289m in 1994-95 to just under £2bn in 2001-2. And costs for treatments soared - on average private treatments are four times more expensive than those offered on the NHS.
Millions of Britons, unable to pay the higher costs and without an NHS practice in their area, simply stopped going to the dentist altogether. As a result tooth decay, mouth cancer and other oral diseases rose sharply.
As I highlighted in the New Statesman in 2005, "A predominantly private dental service inevitably means a two-tier service: good mouths and gleaming smiles for the rich; disease, tooth decay and emergency extraction dentistry for the rest."
What we are heading for if the coalition gets its way is a predominantly private health service. As in dentistry, that will mean a two-tier service - good health and prompt treatment for the rich, longer waiting times and a second-class service for the rest.
How Nye Bevan must be turning in his grave.
Neil Clark Morning Star
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Notice of Motion
This will be moved at council on Wednesday 21/07/10 by Leader Councillor John Merry & seconded by Councillor Bill Hinds.
I am led to believe that it has upset Lib Dem leader Councillor Norman Owen. What a suprise !!
This Council notes
* Nick Clegg's interview in the Observer in which he pledged that any cuts would be on the basis of fairness and there would be no return to Thatcherism.
* The Liberal Democrat Party poster during the recent election campaign which drew attention to the Conservative VAT bombshell.
The "year in" savings announced for Local Government that do not meet Nick Clegg's pledge of fairness as Salford faces £4 million of expendidture cuts which represents 1.1% of the total Council budget, whilst Conservative controlled Trafford are only required to make expenditure savings amounting to 0.6% of their budget.
This Council believes that if Nick Clegg was serious about the principles of fairness he would take steps to ensure that any future expenditure cuts do not fall on the more deprived or poorest areas and this Council calls upon him to live up to his promises of fairness.
VOTE LIB DEM GET TORY.
I am led to believe that it has upset Lib Dem leader Councillor Norman Owen. What a suprise !!
This Council notes
* Nick Clegg's interview in the Observer in which he pledged that any cuts would be on the basis of fairness and there would be no return to Thatcherism.
* The Liberal Democrat Party poster during the recent election campaign which drew attention to the Conservative VAT bombshell.
The "year in" savings announced for Local Government that do not meet Nick Clegg's pledge of fairness as Salford faces £4 million of expendidture cuts which represents 1.1% of the total Council budget, whilst Conservative controlled Trafford are only required to make expenditure savings amounting to 0.6% of their budget.
This Council believes that if Nick Clegg was serious about the principles of fairness he would take steps to ensure that any future expenditure cuts do not fall on the more deprived or poorest areas and this Council calls upon him to live up to his promises of fairness.
VOTE LIB DEM GET TORY.
New Clause IV ?
This is John Cruddas's attempt at a new clause IV.
The Labour party is a democratic socialist party that strives to create a fair and more equal society. We campaign to eradicate poverty and discrimination and to extend opportunities to those denied them because we believe that no citizen's life chances should be determined by the circumstances into which he or she is born. We hold that a free and fair society is founded upon mutual respect, compassion and understanding. We will work internationally with all who share our values, to spread justice and human rights and to sustain our common environment for generations yet to come.
The original: "To secure for all the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry of service."
What Blair replaced it with: The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
I think there does need to be a debate in the party when the new leader is elected to show the public at large what the party stands for and be implicit to all members,including MP's and leadership.
The Labour party is a democratic socialist party that strives to create a fair and more equal society. We campaign to eradicate poverty and discrimination and to extend opportunities to those denied them because we believe that no citizen's life chances should be determined by the circumstances into which he or she is born. We hold that a free and fair society is founded upon mutual respect, compassion and understanding. We will work internationally with all who share our values, to spread justice and human rights and to sustain our common environment for generations yet to come.
The original: "To secure for all the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry of service."
What Blair replaced it with: The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
I think there does need to be a debate in the party when the new leader is elected to show the public at large what the party stands for and be implicit to all members,including MP's and leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
