The Coalition Government has had a bumpy ride with its NHS "reforms". After campaigning as a lover of the NHS and eschewing "top down" reorganisations, David Cameron gave the NHS to Andrew Landsley, a man who had been planning for many years to commercialise (at least), and impose just such a top down reorganisation, on the NHS in England.
Whenever the question of whether they intend to privatise NHS services the Tories throw up their hands and roll their eyes: "Not me guv. Honest". Meanwhile American and other Healthcare companies slaver on the sidelines. The NHS is a plum they would very much like to swallow. If only the Government would let them...
Today it was announced that a company called Circle Healthcare has been awarded the contract to manage Hitchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire. Not quite a full privatisation but very possibly a rehearsal for it. A trojan Horse, the thin end of a gold plated wedge.
Politics Home has declared an exclusive on the revalation that Circle Healthcare has strong links to the Tory Party.
Individuals linked to Circle have donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Conservatives over the last few years and a Tory MP is revealed as an ex-employee.
To add flavour, The False Economy Blog claims that Circle has never made a profit.
In which case, what of their magical management capability? If you can't make a profit running your own business, how do you qualify to run anyone else's? Let alone a huge, locally vital, public health facility?
We couldn't be looking at an example of that old fashioned Tory sleaze, could we..... you grease my palms, I'll put business your way. With the added bonus of privatising public property.....
Showing posts with label Tory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tory. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 November 2011
Monday, 20 December 2010
The journalists wake up.
It has always puzzled me that people are taken in by David Cameron's "nice guy" act. I was never taken in. Cameron joined the Tory Party when Maggie Thatcher was at the height of her powers, when the mantra was "there is no such thing as society" and when Mrs T's policies were designed to back up that judgement with actions to cut "society" (read caring for your fellow citizen) down to size. David Cameron was Norman Lamont's (if it isn't hurting it isn't working) adviser on the day the pound collapsed on Black Wednesday. That's no background of a caring and moderate "one-nation" MacMillanite wet.
No idealistic youngster would join the 1980s Tories to make things better for the majority. If you were willing to join Maggie in her crusade against all things "socialist" (i.e. decent and caring), you were no bleeding heart Tory wet.
It has been obvious for months to any sentient observer that Cameron and (at least) the Tory segment of the ToryDem coalition are no moderate modernisers either. That was the plot to get them elected. They are, in deep reality, still Mrs Thatcher's boys, and they were determined to move at breakneck pace to get their planned revolution implemented. They also saw that Tony Blair had been cautious in his first term and had lost some momentum after that, and they did not intend to be caught in that way.
The first indication was Michael Gove's dedication to getting his "free" schools established. Even before the legislation had been enacted by Parliament he was active, claiming 1100 schoos had volunteered (only 20 or so have actually decided to open next year, but that's another story...) and pushing local groups and local authorities to adopt his model.
The June budget with its immediate £8 billion in cuts was another signal, as was Eric Pickles "localism" drive to destroy local government, another example of a Minister being too impatient to wait for the legislation. Andrew Lansley at Health is eagerly cutting away at structures and abolishing PCTs while at the same time forcing GPs to take on organisational and budgeting responsibilities. Constitutional changes like fixed term Parliaments, cutting the number of constituencies and bringing in the Alternative Vote system have all been pushed through with effectively no consultation and very little scrutiny. The privatisation of university teaching (disgiused as "raising tuition fees") is the latest radical Tory policy which has been railroaded through.
It's all rather breathless and uncordinated. Hit-and-miss might be a better way of putting it (the poor get hit, the bankers get missed).
Now the journalists are beginning to wake up to the pace and breadth of the revolution that is being carried out under our noses. Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer detects a "Maoist" backbone to the Tory programme. "In 5 years everything must be different. Everything". Steve Richards on R4 today judges that the changes are faster and bigger than 1945. The valuable Diary of a Civil Servant blog in the Guardian has a similar message, with (in his view) the NHS changes being particularly rapid, unformed and potentially dangerous.
At bottom it's about philosophy. Conservatives believe in the past. It worked then and will work now. Except it didn't work then. We have publicly owned and run schools and hospitals because the old system failed the majority of the population. We have (or had) publicly subsidised university teaching because the old system favoured (even more than today) a restricted and constricted class of applicant. It was unsuiatble for a modern democracy and economy. Parish councils are all very well in prospect (remember John Major's old ladies cycling to church on a summer evening), but they are not the vehicle for serious decisions and spending at any level of reality. As for giving GPs the responsibility for £80 billlion of commissioning in the NHS: it's frankly bonkers. They don't want it, there's no guarantee that they can handle it any better (probably much worse) than it is currently handled. The real expertise in budgeting and commissioning is meanwhile being sacked, the skills lost, the individual is no longer payng taxes while picking up dole money!
And we haven't even mentioned George Osborne's gamble with the economy.
Hold onto your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
No idealistic youngster would join the 1980s Tories to make things better for the majority. If you were willing to join Maggie in her crusade against all things "socialist" (i.e. decent and caring), you were no bleeding heart Tory wet.
It has been obvious for months to any sentient observer that Cameron and (at least) the Tory segment of the ToryDem coalition are no moderate modernisers either. That was the plot to get them elected. They are, in deep reality, still Mrs Thatcher's boys, and they were determined to move at breakneck pace to get their planned revolution implemented. They also saw that Tony Blair had been cautious in his first term and had lost some momentum after that, and they did not intend to be caught in that way.
The first indication was Michael Gove's dedication to getting his "free" schools established. Even before the legislation had been enacted by Parliament he was active, claiming 1100 schoos had volunteered (only 20 or so have actually decided to open next year, but that's another story...) and pushing local groups and local authorities to adopt his model.
The June budget with its immediate £8 billion in cuts was another signal, as was Eric Pickles "localism" drive to destroy local government, another example of a Minister being too impatient to wait for the legislation. Andrew Lansley at Health is eagerly cutting away at structures and abolishing PCTs while at the same time forcing GPs to take on organisational and budgeting responsibilities. Constitutional changes like fixed term Parliaments, cutting the number of constituencies and bringing in the Alternative Vote system have all been pushed through with effectively no consultation and very little scrutiny. The privatisation of university teaching (disgiused as "raising tuition fees") is the latest radical Tory policy which has been railroaded through.
It's all rather breathless and uncordinated. Hit-and-miss might be a better way of putting it (the poor get hit, the bankers get missed).
Now the journalists are beginning to wake up to the pace and breadth of the revolution that is being carried out under our noses. Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer detects a "Maoist" backbone to the Tory programme. "In 5 years everything must be different. Everything". Steve Richards on R4 today judges that the changes are faster and bigger than 1945. The valuable Diary of a Civil Servant blog in the Guardian has a similar message, with (in his view) the NHS changes being particularly rapid, unformed and potentially dangerous.
At bottom it's about philosophy. Conservatives believe in the past. It worked then and will work now. Except it didn't work then. We have publicly owned and run schools and hospitals because the old system failed the majority of the population. We have (or had) publicly subsidised university teaching because the old system favoured (even more than today) a restricted and constricted class of applicant. It was unsuiatble for a modern democracy and economy. Parish councils are all very well in prospect (remember John Major's old ladies cycling to church on a summer evening), but they are not the vehicle for serious decisions and spending at any level of reality. As for giving GPs the responsibility for £80 billlion of commissioning in the NHS: it's frankly bonkers. They don't want it, there's no guarantee that they can handle it any better (probably much worse) than it is currently handled. The real expertise in budgeting and commissioning is meanwhile being sacked, the skills lost, the individual is no longer payng taxes while picking up dole money!
And we haven't even mentioned George Osborne's gamble with the economy.
Hold onto your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
Friday, 4 June 2010
What's in a (Nick)Name?
On the political blogosphere you get all sorts of comments and namecalling. For a certain type of contributor it is not enough to put the case, you have to rubbish the other guy by insult or name-calling.
So, when discussing politics, Labour is never just Labour or New Labour, it has to be "New Liebour" or "Neue Liebour" or some variation. Similarly the Liberal Democrats are the Lib Dums or the Fib Dems or even the Fib Dums.
But for some reason there is no equivalent insult for the Tories.... Now why would that be? Maybe calling someone a Tory is considered insult enough in itself, like calling the Daily Telegraph the "Torygraph". It says it all and no need for extra emphasis........
I wonder, has anyone come across an insult you can use against a Tory that is worse than just saying what they are: i.e. a Tory?
So, when discussing politics, Labour is never just Labour or New Labour, it has to be "New Liebour" or "Neue Liebour" or some variation. Similarly the Liberal Democrats are the Lib Dums or the Fib Dems or even the Fib Dums.
But for some reason there is no equivalent insult for the Tories.... Now why would that be? Maybe calling someone a Tory is considered insult enough in itself, like calling the Daily Telegraph the "Torygraph". It says it all and no need for extra emphasis........
I wonder, has anyone come across an insult you can use against a Tory that is worse than just saying what they are: i.e. a Tory?
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Brave Dave's New World
David Cameron has launched his manifesto, the key themes being "smaller government" and "big society".
Judging by the detail, "smaller government" means less investment in schools, hospitals and public services generally.
And "big society" means, you pay the difference..... , yes I mean you my lad.....
Also: the Manifesto itself looks like a missive from the Ministry of Works, circa 1952.....
Given that these publications are pored over and designed to carry the internal "message" of the document: what message is a boring, bland, civil service-ese hardback from the age of austerity cover supposed to convey?
When ideas like this used to come up in "Yes Minister", Sir Humphrey would say "that's very brave, Minister", meaning it's a damn foolhardy idea Minister, but I'm not going to alert you to it if your too stupid to see for yourseself...
So, Brave for Dave, but how clever?
Judging by the detail, "smaller government" means less investment in schools, hospitals and public services generally.
And "big society" means, you pay the difference..... , yes I mean you my lad.....
Also: the Manifesto itself looks like a missive from the Ministry of Works, circa 1952.....
Given that these publications are pored over and designed to carry the internal "message" of the document: what message is a boring, bland, civil service-ese hardback from the age of austerity cover supposed to convey?
When ideas like this used to come up in "Yes Minister", Sir Humphrey would say "that's very brave, Minister", meaning it's a damn foolhardy idea Minister, but I'm not going to alert you to it if your too stupid to see for yourseself...
So, Brave for Dave, but how clever?
Monday, 1 March 2010
Lord Ashcroft Speaks (or writes actually)
Lord Ashcroft, Tory vice-chair and bankroller, has made a statement about his tax and residence status.
It all appears, if not innocent, then at least legal. Ashcroft is a non-dom, the rules allow non-dom contrubutions, so that's all right then.
But wait a minute, isn't the second part of the equation just as important as the first? There are rules governing election spending. These were designed so that no one party could, through an excess of riches, buy the Westminster election. But isn't that exactly what the Conservatives have been up to for the last three years? By spending Ashcrofts money (or his companies' money) in selected target marginal seats, the Tories have been effectively buying the election because, by definition, the marginals are more likely to change hands with any change in votng intentions. Increase that likelihood and you increase the number of Conservative seats.
Weekend polls show the gap between Labour and Tory narrowing. But if Ashcroft and his party can effectively "buy" the marginal seats, then the will of the electorate can be underminded and ignored.
The statement in its entirety:
You have to wonder: is this the whole story? What does "declaring all my income to HM Revenue", actually mean? Has Ashcroft been paying UK taxes on his income? Should he have been? And if he has, what was all the fuss about? What about David Cameron and the succession of senior Tories who failed to tell us the tax status of the Noble Lord: why didn't they know, or tell us, if it was as innocent as the good Lord Ashcroft now says it was?
I really wonder if this issue is as dead as the Conservatives would now wish....
It all appears, if not innocent, then at least legal. Ashcroft is a non-dom, the rules allow non-dom contrubutions, so that's all right then.
But wait a minute, isn't the second part of the equation just as important as the first? There are rules governing election spending. These were designed so that no one party could, through an excess of riches, buy the Westminster election. But isn't that exactly what the Conservatives have been up to for the last three years? By spending Ashcrofts money (or his companies' money) in selected target marginal seats, the Tories have been effectively buying the election because, by definition, the marginals are more likely to change hands with any change in votng intentions. Increase that likelihood and you increase the number of Conservative seats.
Weekend polls show the gap between Labour and Tory narrowing. But if Ashcroft and his party can effectively "buy" the marginal seats, then the will of the electorate can be underminded and ignored.
The statement in its entirety:
1st March 2020
A Statement From Lord Ashcroft
I am making this statement in advance of the release by the Cabinet Office of limited
information about the award of my peerage and of the undertakings I gave at the
time.
While I value my privacy, I do not want my affairs to distract from the general election
campaign. I have therefore decided to release a copy of the letter which I wrote to
William Hague, and to expand on what actually happened.
As the letter shows, the undertakings I gave were confirmed in a memorandum to
William Hague dated 23rd March 2000. These were to "take up permanent
residence in the UK again" by the end of that year. The other commitment in the
memorandum was to resign as Belize's permanent representative to the UN, which I
did a week later.
In subsequent dialogue with the Government, it was officially confirmed that the
interpretation in the first undertaking of the words "permanent residence" was to be
that of "a long term resident" of the UK. I agreed to this and finally took up my seat in the House of Lords in October 2000. Throughout the last ten years, I have been declaring all my UK income to HM Revenue.
My precise tax status therefore is that of a “non-dom". Two of Labour's biggest
donors - Lord Paul (recently made a privy councillor by the Prime Minister) and Sir
Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also "non-doms".
As for the future, while the non-dom status will continue for many people in business
or public life, David Cameron has said that anyone sitting in the legislature - Lords or
Commons - must be treated as resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. I
agree with this change and expect to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years
to come.
You have to wonder: is this the whole story? What does "declaring all my income to HM Revenue", actually mean? Has Ashcroft been paying UK taxes on his income? Should he have been? And if he has, what was all the fuss about? What about David Cameron and the succession of senior Tories who failed to tell us the tax status of the Noble Lord: why didn't they know, or tell us, if it was as innocent as the good Lord Ashcroft now says it was?
I really wonder if this issue is as dead as the Conservatives would now wish....
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Broken Britain, or Wishful Thinking
Just what is it about the Conservative party and the spreading of fear and panic? Why do they think a fearful electorate will run to them?
The Tories have been banging on about what they call "Broken Britain" for months now. According to their analysis the UK is a crumbling society: crime is rising, children are being killed in unprecedented numbers by "beasts" and the public should be trembling with fear.... until Dave rides to the rescue....
Except.... Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, has been rebuked by the head of the Office of Statistics for issuing statistics for campaigning Torys that show violent crime rising. In fact the basis for gathering and reporting the stats was changed in 2002. Violent crime is actually falling, but Grayling's figures give a false impression of the actual level of violent crime. Now why would the Tories want people to think that violent crime is rising when it's not?
read more here
Another thread of the "Broken Britain" narrative has unravelled today with a report which shows that the violent deaths of children have decreased by 40%-50% since 1974. And the main reason identified was the interventions and actions of social workers.
The Conservatives have a real cheek pursuing this thread. Under Mrs Thatcher crime and poverty doubled. Violent crime increased. There was a great deal of social disorder, with riots in the streets of the major cities of England in 1981, 1982 and 1987. If Dave wants a paradigm of a "Broken Britain", he should dig up his old diaries of the time when he was a back room boy at Smith Square.
Crime, poverty, violence all up, and riots in the streets.
Now that's broken.
The Tories have been banging on about what they call "Broken Britain" for months now. According to their analysis the UK is a crumbling society: crime is rising, children are being killed in unprecedented numbers by "beasts" and the public should be trembling with fear.... until Dave rides to the rescue....
Except.... Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, has been rebuked by the head of the Office of Statistics for issuing statistics for campaigning Torys that show violent crime rising. In fact the basis for gathering and reporting the stats was changed in 2002. Violent crime is actually falling, but Grayling's figures give a false impression of the actual level of violent crime. Now why would the Tories want people to think that violent crime is rising when it's not?
read more here
Another thread of the "Broken Britain" narrative has unravelled today with a report which shows that the violent deaths of children have decreased by 40%-50% since 1974. And the main reason identified was the interventions and actions of social workers.
The Conservatives have a real cheek pursuing this thread. Under Mrs Thatcher crime and poverty doubled. Violent crime increased. There was a great deal of social disorder, with riots in the streets of the major cities of England in 1981, 1982 and 1987. If Dave wants a paradigm of a "Broken Britain", he should dig up his old diaries of the time when he was a back room boy at Smith Square.
Crime, poverty, violence all up, and riots in the streets.
Now that's broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
