The government's health minister Andrew Lansley maintains that the reforms to be put before parliament on Wednesday are not an example of the kind of old skool "top down" political mismanagement which has dogged the health service for years. The lie in this is made clear by his PMs words. This is not bottom-up reform, it is simply yet another imposition of ideology for short-term political gain. Business as usual for an NHS which has been in a perpetual state of reform for the last 30 years or more.

BBC NEWS website wrote:David Cameron has said Britain should not put off wide-ranging public sector reforms, amid criticism about the pace of NHS changes in England. The PM said he wanted to "do right" by public sector workers but arguments he should stick with the status quo were a "complete fiction". Critics who said the plans amounted to privatisation needed to "grow up".

The Royal College of GPs, the British Medical Association (BMA) and trade unions say the upheaval is unnecessary. Ministers will publish a health bill this week that will pave the way for GP consortiums to take over management of the NHS from primary care trusts in England.

But the Royal College of GPs and the BMA say the same results could have been achieved by a small change in the current structure. And the heads of six health unions, including the BMA, warned in the Times of their "extreme concerns" about greater commercial competition between the NHS and private companies...

Full article >> >>

Consultants, GPs, nurses, managers, clerical and admin staff do not necessarily agree with Mr Cameron's imperative.

BBC NEWS website wrote:Fears are being raised about the NHS shake-up in England with GPs branding the scale of the changes unnecessary. Ministers will publish a health bill this week that will pave the way for GP consortiums to take over management of the NHS from primary care trusts.

Prime minister David Cameron has said "fundamental changes" are needed in the NHS. But doctors leaders believe that GPs could simply have taken charge of PCTs instead - and got the same results. Their intervention is set to spark another round of debate over the government's controversial plans.

It comes on the same day as the heads of six health unions, including the BMA again, warned of their "extreme concerns" about greater commercial competition between the NHS and private companies.

In a letter to the Times, BMA chairman Hamish Meldrum, Royal College of Nursing chief executive Peter Carter and the heads of Unison, Unite and others said the speed and scale of the reforms proposed risked undermining the care of patients by putting cost before quality.

Criticism of the reform had been mounting ahead of the publication of the Health and Social Care Bill on Wednesday. Over the weekend, the NHS Confederation, which represents managers, suggested hospitals may have to close under the planned reforms...

Full article >> >>

For Cameron to cast the highly trained, dedicated, and competent healthcare workers who have misgivings about the pace and manner of the proposed reforms as nay-sayers who should 'grow-up' and stop demanding a 'status quo' (a PAI and a strawman) is not an example of caring, sharing conservatism but and example of an old-style, top-down authoritarianism in the Thatcher mode.

The now familiar justiications will be trotted out no doubt; we have to Railtrackise the NHS in a hurry because of the deficit, it's all Labour's fault - and the Tories coalition whipping boys will no doubt claim the proposed reforms conform to a classic liberal agenda.

Is this privatisation by the back door really what the public where led to expect from either party in the ConDem coalition before the election? Is it even acceptable in principle to the British public? Do we really want to see the NHS go the way of Railtrack, broken into a myriad of competing business enterprises all trying to maximise their profit and minimise their spending, ultimately to be gobbled up by international concerns?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12203000

David Cameron has said Britain should not put off wide-ranging public sector reforms, amid criticism about the pace of NHS changes in England.

The PM said he wanted to "do right" by public sector workers but arguments he should stick with the status quo were a "complete fiction".

Critics who said the plans amounted to privatisation needed to "grow up".
The Royal College of GPs, the British Medical Association (BMA) and trade unions say the upheaval is unnecessary.

Come on Pen, you know reform of the NHS is not the same as privatising it.

Matt H wrote:Come on Pen, you know reform of the NHS is not the same as privatising it.

I do not believe that for one minute Mat, I wish I could be proved wrong. My fathers generation fought long and hard to get the NHS, the jewel in the crown of our public services. These buggers as far as I’m concerned want to privities every thing back to the 30s.

Cameron's comments about privitisation are themselves woefully immature, he should win the argument not indulge in trolling.

PS I like the use of the americanism 'privitization', just remind us where the NHS is going.

Parts of the NHS provision are supplied by private companies/persons. These people contract their services to the NHS.

Community Pharmacy, Dentists, Opticians, and GPs are not employed directly by the NHSand are private companies or partnerships. So I have never fully understood this reaction to to private companies/persons getting involved in NHS provision. However the constant chopping and changing, U-turns, U-U-turns is what is causing a lot of problems within NHS provision.

I know a lot of people complain about the number of managers within the NHS, how ever my experience is that it is not the numbers of managers that is the problem it is often they are not in the right places and often of very poor calibre despite the wages of a lot of the top management.

In any coalition, compromise is necessary. It is about grown-up politics. Er, sorry; talking complete & utter bollox. I'll get my coat.

chairman bill wrote:In any coalition, compromise is necessary. It is about grown-up politics. Er, sorry; talking complete & utter bollox. I'll get my coat.

Well, that was unexpected!

There is no British mandate for this shit. None whatsoever. No one who voted LibDem had any cause to expect anything of this sort. That the LibDems are backing a government that is now trying to impose this sort of thing on the UK, speaks volumes for the extent to which they give a shit about the welfare of society as a whole. Had the Tories offered up this as a manifesto policy, they'd not be in government now.

Milliband needs to stand up & announce that any future Labour government will enact legislation to undo the Tory privatisation, without compensation for any company that takes over NHS services.

And in the meantime, the depth of my disgust for David 'Bullingdon Boy' Cameron & his cronies, becomes deeper & deeper.

chairman bill wrote:There is no British mandate for this shit. None whatsoever. No one who voted LibDem had any cause to expect anything of this sort. That the LibDems are backing a government that is now trying to impose this sort of thing on the UK, speaks volumes for the extent to which they give a shit about the welfare of society as a whole. Had the Tories offered up this as a manifesto policy, they'd not be in government now.

Milliband needs to stand up & announce that any future Labour government will enact legislation to undo the Tory privatisation, without compensation for any company that takes over NHS services.

And in the meantime, the depth of my disgust for David 'Bullingdon Boy' Cameron & his cronies, becomes deeper & deeper.

I agree Bill "Milliband needs to stand up & announce that any future Labour government will enact legislation to undo the Tory privatisation, without compensation for any company that takes over NHS services." Its not going to happen mate.

We can but hope. My wife's comment was, "We should maybe look to Tunisia for inspiration". I increasingly feel like it might come to that. Another 4+ years of this shit, without any mandate from the British people? Fuck that!

campermon wrote:Bring back Kinnock!

One of the biggest sell out merchants the labour party has ever had. Leave it to us in parliament said Kinnock we will see Thatcher off. That worked, not. What got rid of Thatcher was the poll tax demo's all over the country and the thousands that met in London. See you all on the demo in March against this latest Tory bastard Government .

campermon wrote:

pensioner wrote:

campermon wrote:Bring back Kinnock!

One of the biggest sell out merchants the labour party has ever had. Leave it to us in parliament said Kinnock we will see Thatcher off. That worked, not. What got rid of Thatcher was the poll tax demo's all over the country and the thousands that met in London. See you all on the demo in March against this latest Tory bastard Government .

hmmmmm....Miliband just doesn't do it for me...But I guess he's our last great hope.

Which demo is that then?

TUC national demonstration against the cuts to take place in London next March

Speaking at a union event in London later today (Saturday), TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber will announce that the date of the TUC national demonstration against the cuts will be in Hyde Park in the Spring, on Saturday 26 March 2011.

Addressing the Greater London Association of Trades Councils' 150th Celebration Conference at Congress House, Brendan Barber will say that the unions are now at the heart of a powerful, progressive coalition against the cuts, bringing together service users, charities and community groups.

Brendan Barber will say: 'The union movement and the country face the sternest test in a generation. Not only is the economy on its knees, not only is the law tilted against us, but we have a government in power that is making spending cuts of a speed, scale and savagery never before seen.

First things first. People are misusing the word "reform"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reform

1. To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.

We're talking about alleged reforms. You've already lost part of the argument if you admit they should be called reforms.

Don't let them get away with it. Especially ex-public school and Oxbridge types like Cameron and co. who know how to use language with such precision.

vandalism is the word.

I tend to refer to them as 'deforms'.

chairman bill wrote:I tend to refer to them as 'deforms'.

I will post this again, the more things change they stay the same.