"Worse than vermin" @ No 10

Arturo laughed out loud and pointed at his laptop screen! "That 'Silly Ass' Lansley is losing it - big time! He's sees himself as being in a similar plight to Nye Bevan!! Can you believe that?"

I peered at the screen and an article, written by Jeremy Laurance, in the Independent. It reported a speech given by 'Silly Ass' Lansley:

... the Health Secretary accused his critics of spreading "lies" about the reforms and suggested that change in the NHS had always been opposed because it was "hard".
"Look back to 1948 when the British Medical Association denounced Aneurin Bevan as 'a would-be Führer' for wanting them to join a National Health Service. And Bevan himself described the BMA as 'politically poisoned people'. A survey at the time showed only 10 per cent of doctors backed the plans ... but where would we be today if my predecessors had caved in," Mr Lansley said in a speech in Liverpool.

Does he really compare himself to Bevan? I could not believe my eyes!

Jeremy Laurance reported that a source at a meeting held by the medical royal colleges had said:

"Ministers have been busy ringing college presidents – a lot of conversations have been had in the last 24 hours. It was felt that while those conversations were continuing it was not appropriate to say anything. These are shifting sands."

The source also reported that:

Anxiety about the Bill extends across the medical and political spectrum and is focused on the impact of increased competition, privatisation and the ability of the NHS to make £20bn efficiency savings by 2014.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lansley-tells-bma-stop-spreading-lies-about-my-health-reform-bill-6295399.html

I see! It seems it is legitimate for Ministers to do some 'ringing'! One has to wonder what was said and to whom?

There are certain people who will be in the vanguard of implementing any of the proposed changes to the NHS. They are the General Practitioners and the Nurses. Now, 'Silly Ass' Lansley, let's do a tally of their views, shall we?

The Royal College of General Practitioners is opposed to much of the Bill. In a recent survey of its members' views on the Health and Social Care Bill, the following results were found:

More than 50 per cent (987 respondents) said that the reforms would increase the involvement of the private sector
More than 43 per cent (828 respondents) said that they strongly disagreed that they would reduce bureaucracy in the NHS
Only 4 per cent (75 respondents) agreed that the reforms would result in better care for patients
More than 93 per cent of respondents said that they did not feel reassured by Government’s response

In addition,

When asked whether they personally wished to be involved on the board of a clinical commissioning group, almost 70% of respondents said that they did not.

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/press_releases_and_statements/latest_on_health_bill.aspx

The Royal College of Nursing is opposed to much of the Bill and issued the following statement:

The RCN has engaged with the Government at every stage of the
NHS reform process since it was first announced in 2010.

The RCN has clearly and consistently set out which areas of the Bill must be changed, not as a matter of self interest, but to guarantee patient care and to retain the NHS as a national institution providing high quality care, free at the point of need.

Due to the Government’s refusal to concede on sufficient points, and the risk we believe the legislation poses to patient care, the RCN is now moving to a position where we oppose the Health and Social Care Bill.

http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/426909/Why_the_RCN_is_opposing_the_Health_and_Social_Care_Bill.pdf

Wow! 'Silly Ass' Lansley - you've got real problems, haven't you?

Laurance's article in the Independent also stated:

The Health Select Committee warned on Tuesday that the reforms were a "distraction" and the NHS Confederation, representing NHS trusts, said the NHS was "sleepwalking into serious difficulties." The BMA, RCN and RCM initially signalled their intention to work with ministers on the Bill, but last week switched to outright opposition.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lansley-tells-bma-stop-spreading-lies-about-my-health-reform-bill-6295399.html

So! The NHS is "sleepwalking into serious difficulties". Surely, Lansley cannot continue to push the Bill forward against all this opposition from health professionals! Even the politicians on the Health Select Committee, chaired by a former Tory Health Secretary, have expressed their serious concerns about the situation.

In these circumstances, it's unfortunate, to say the least, that some of the more contentious parts of this proposed legislation seem to have been implemented already . Shouldn't there be a judicial review about this?

Maybe, 'Silly Ass' Lansley would be wise to recollect what a Dictator said in the course of addressing his National Congress when the country was in a parlous state:

"Today, we stand on the edge of an abyss. Tomorrow, we shall take one step forwards!"

"Step back, Lansley! Step back - not forwards!" Arturo said loudly.

There is one more message that Arturo asked me to pass on to 'Silly Ass' Lansley. He is delighted that Lansley has such admiration for Nye Bevan. However, Lansley should remember that Bevan had no regard for Conservative politicians. He called them "worse than vermin".

As for Arturo and me, we're sneaking into the kitchen to get some tasty scraps. Don't fancy 'vermin' tonight!

'Bye'

Silly Asses Still Rule @ No 10

"He's a nasty bit of work!" Arturo exclaimed with feeling. "That chap you call the 'Silver Fox'! That Lansley - berk! He's as stubborn as a mule." He paused. "Didn't someone say that if you're as stubborn as a mule you become an ass! Well! That's Lansley for you: A silly ass!"

You have to agree with Arturo, don't you? 'Silly Ass' Lansley, as I'll call him from now on, refuses to listen to any criticism of his ill-planned Health and Social Care Bill.

The Royal College of Midwives has voiced strong criticisms of the Bill. Their Chief Executive, Cathy Warwick, was quoted in the New Statesman as saying:

... we face subjecting the NHS to full-blown competition and market forces at a time when those very same forces have thrown our economy onto the edge of the abyss. Why take the greed that almost destroyed our entire economy and choose to inject it directly into the heart of the NHS? Greed isn't good, it's bad, and it shouldn't be the driving force behind what motivates those who deliver healthcare within the NHS. Right now the NHS is something special. It exists to care for people. Opening up a US-style free-for-all, where its existence is about providing profit to private companies, is surely not the road down which we want to travel.

That sounds really dire! Cathy Warwick went on to say:

In short, five years from now the NHS might be little more than a state-funded health insurance system, made up of a fragmented mishmash of private companies competing with each other to provide narrow slivers of care. "NHS" would be the logo on the front of it all - but with no real NHS hospitals, no NHS doctors, NHS nurses or NHS midwives. The NHS that has served us pretty well for over 60 years will be gone, something for people to read about in their history books.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/health-bill-nhs-private-care

Did 'Silly Ass' Lansley listen? If he did, he did not take it on board!! Too stubborn, or what? Too stupid? Quite possibly!

Cathy Warwick is not the only health expert to make critical comments. In the Observer, last Sunday, an editorial under the headline: Listen to the experts, Mr Lansley – your reforms are wrong made the following comment:

Last week, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy joined the British Medical Association and the Royal College of GPs in calling for the entire bill to be thrown out. Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the RCN, said carrying out the reforms at a time when the NHS has been told that it must find £20bn in efficiency savings is "quite simply the wrong thing to do".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/21/nhs-reform-health-socialcare-bill

No mincing of words from the 'experts'! But, of course, 'Silly Ass' Lansley has cloth ears! He is utterly convinced that he and he alone knows best!

'Boy David' Cameron must be getting a teensy bit anxious over the antics of his 'Silly Ass' Secretary of State. People love their NHS and it no longer looks 'safe' in the Coalition's grubby little hands! One way to restore confidence would be to boot out 'Silly Ass'.

But hang on a minute! Today, a knight in shining armour was seen riding desperately through the mists, a lance in his hand, his trusty shield and buckler at the ready! Who is this unknown knight? I don't believe it!! Can it be? Yes! It is a Tory MP! None other than the Chairperson of the Commons Health Select Committee, Stephen Dorrell.

The contents of the Select Committees's report were 'leaked'. According to the BBC, it indicates that MPs on the Committee had:

strong concerns about the ability of the NHS to make the savings - the equivalent of 4% a year.

It said there had been too much emphasis so far on short-term cuts and "salami-slicing", instead of rethinking the way care is delivered.

And it argued there needed to be more integration with social care to stop people needing hospital treatment, which tends to be more expensive.

But it warned that in some ways the opposite was happening as councils were increasingly restricting access to services.

On the reforms, it concluded they were "complicating" the savings process because they were acting as a "disruption and distraction".

The BBC report went on to say:

BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said the plans will prove harmful to patients.

"The health select committee say it's distracting - we would say it's completely unnecessary and somewhat dangerous.

"As the Health Select Committee say, it's taking everybody's mind off the real issues, which is trying to run an efficient health service, trying to make changes to the health service for the benefit of patients, and, at the same time, trying to identify savings."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16690273

'Silly Ass' Lansley was not going to take any criticism lying down - well asses seldom do, do they? He let it be known in terms of obvious irritation that he was not best pleased by the report.

An article in the Independent made the following comments:

Mr Lansley insisted that the NHS was delivering efficiency savings and improvements for patients following a warning from MPs that the overhaul of the NHS is hindering efforts to slash health spending without cutting vital services.

“I think the select committee's report is not only out of date but it is also, I think, unfair to the NHS, because people in the NHS, in hospitals and in the community services are very focused on ensuring that they deliver the best care to patients and that they live within the financial challenges that clearly all of us have at the moment,” Mr Lansley told ITV Daybreak.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/lansley-defends-nhs-reforms-after-scathing-report-from-mps-6293775.html

The battle for the NHS is neither over, nor won, nor yet lost. This week will be a crucial time for the Bill. The Lords continue to debate amendments and the various Royal Colleges are trying to get their act together. As one doctor who believes passionately in the protection of the NHS stated in his blog Bevan's Run:

one of Lansley’s three key stated principles underpinning his reforms is “empowering frontline health professionals”. United opposition from the medical and nursing professions would make a mockery of this claim, sending a clear public message of distrust in Mr Lansely and his bill.

So the future of the NHS really does lie in the hands of the Medical Royal Colleges – and they know it.

http://bevansrun.blogspot.com/2012/01/nhs-is-in-hands-of-medical-royal.html

Will 'Silly Ass' Lansley listen? Watch this space!!!

Arturo and I are dining out in Trafalgar Square tonight!

'Bye'

Oh Nicholas, don't be so ridiculous!! @ No 10

"Why does the chap you call 'Wailing Lad' Clegg have to open his mouth before he knows what he's really saying?" Arturo shook his head. "He always has to show he's got an opinion! Sometimes it's wiser to say nothing! He makes himself look ridiculous!" Arturo looked up and grinned like the Cheshire Cat. "Remember that song?"

"Which one?" I asked.

"'Oh, Nicholas, don't be so ridiculous!' Now there's a great name for Clegg - Ridiculous Nicholas. You call him that from now on!"

I knew just what Arturo meant about 'Ridiculous Nicholas' Clegg. He always has an answer. Remember the European veto! First he said that not only did he know all about it - but he had agreed to it. Next, he changed his mind his mind and said he did not like the idea at all. Then, he hid himself away.

Still, he never learns! He goes on giving interviews and making comments without really knowing the full facts! It's embarrassing really! But, of course, just like 'Boy David' Cameron, he is a PR man through and through. If there's one thing a PR man must have, it's an opinion! He just HAS to have a ready answer to every question posed - even if he has to retract the said answer an hour, or a day, later!

If 'Ridiculous Nicholas' Clegg continues in this vein - I think he'll be right out in the cold, after the next election!

'Bye'

Not brothers under the skin @ No 10

"I always said it would end in tears!" Arturo said knowingly.

"What will? Who's tears?" I asked rather lamely.

"The lads, of course.... And don't ask 'which lads?'? It's obvious." With a gesture of disdain, he pointed at a computer monitor bearing the headline:

How will the Coalition cope with a year of living fractiously?

The blog was by Benedict Brogan of the Daily Telegraph. He commented:

Resentments that were easily tamed in the first flush of political flirtation will rise to the surface. The differences between the two men will become more apparent. It has barely started, yet already 2012 is turning into the Coalition’s year of living fractiously. Where previously we speculated about an amicable parting in time for the 2015 election, we should now prepare for an unhappy estrangement that turns this once remarkable partnership into a bad-tempered marriage of convenience.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100130578/how-will-the-coalition-cope-with-a-year-of-living-fractiously/

Arturo and I have noticed how 'Wailing Lad' Clegg looks increasingly miserable and uncomfortable in the presence of 'Boy David' Cameron. In turn, Cameron seems increasingly confident, shoulders back, hair well-coiffured; blue tie being worn ever more proudly. Indeed, his confrontational posture at PMQs is progressively apparent. Some of the metallic tones of the responses to Miliband - Ed that is not David - are frequently Flashmanlike. What is more - Cameron makes no effort to play down the bully-boy stance. Seemingly, he enjoys his own repartee and the impact it has on his victims!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch - Clegg rushes from one ill-judged cause to another. He was convinced he could give his party 'voting reform'. It all ended in tears!

Next, his excitement at the prospect of 'reforming' the House of Lords was embarrassing. He said:

The Lords is perhaps the most potent symbol of a closed society. The Lords as currently constituted is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy. So we will have a Lords Reform Bill in the second session of this parliament.

Here speaks a man who worked for the European Union for several years - a more potent example of a 'closed society' it is hard to imagine. Yet, he made no effort to reform the EU!

Many have warned 'Wailing Lad' Clegg to turn his energies to more pressing issues. Issues that might bring a degree of success and put a spring into the step of other LibDems. But for some inexplicable reason he is set on targeting the Lords!

Then there is the fraught question of 'did he, or did he not, agree to Cameron's veto in Europe'? At first, he seemed to imply he knew all about it beforehand. Next, he said he wanted no part of it. Which of these is true?

There is the issue of the Health and Social Care Bill! Without the efforts of the redoubtable Baroness Shirley Williams, a LibDem peer, and Lord David Owen, independent crossbench peer, where would the Bill be? It would not have been questioned so closely, that is for certain. 'Wailing Lad' Clegg maybe uncomfortable about it, but has made no really effective attacks. Without these 'unelected peers' he so wishes to be rid of, the Bill could easily have slipped through without real scrutiny.

As for the Coalition partner - Cameron - he runs roughshod over the weakly led LibDems and their ideals. Old hands such as Charlie Kennedy and Menzies Cambell have seemingly retreated from the frontline in apparent horror. Who can blame them? Student fees were to be abolished NOT increased! Welfare was to be a main focus! The countryside was to be protected not developed! So many lovingly held LibDem ideals - so many disappointments!

At TV showings of Parliament, initially Clegg looked just like Arturo when he has just received a bowl of cream. Now, Clegg looks like the little boy caught with his finger in the pie!

Now, Arturo and I are off to see if we can find our own 'bowl of cream'.

'Bye' from us both

Country cousins can eat the droppings @ No 10

"Tell me, mi old pal, do you think that your Cousin WingCo, who lives down in Devon, or Cousin Iolo living in Gwynedd, should get half a sardine less than we do to eat?" Arturo stared at me, waiting for an answer.

"What a strange question. Why do you ask?" I was curious.

"No, give me an answer. Should we have twice as much to eat here in Downing Street as your country cousins?" Arturo persisted.

"Of course not! We all need the same amount of food. Why are you harping on about this?"

Arturo pointed me towards the computer screen being looked at by one of the Interns. It was on the Financial Times. There was a headline:

Coalition faces backlash on regional pay

Now I understood why he was so exercised. He'd been very agitated at the time of Georgy's Autumn Statement when the idea was first mooted. We'd discussed it but assumed it had been dropped. Now, it seems it's even worrying the LibDems! MPs such as Adrian Sanders, Lib Dem MP for Torbay, John Leech, Lib Dem MP for Manchester Withington, John Pugh, Lib Dem MP for Southport and Andrew George, Lib Dem MP for St Ives are all opposed to the scheme. They see it as fragmenting the public sector. They think it will increase poverty in already deprived communities.

We know that 'Wailing Lad' Clegg is in enough of a pickle (not Eric Pickles - you understand!) because of failing support in the country. Now, if Georgy Osborne's ideas of regional pay are pushed through - 'Wailing Lad' Clegg will loose even the small support his party still retains!!

The idea of paying salary/wage differentials to different regions has caused quite a kerfuffle. It would mean that places like Cornwall, Wales, the North-East and Scotland would see their public sector workers get lower salaries than those living in London.

The argument behind the 'cunning plan' is this:

Lower living costs = lower pay
Higher living costs = higher pay

Even those public sector workers living in large cities in the regions will have more pay than those, doing identical jobs, living in smaller towns!

Will Tesco, Sainsbury's, Aldi and Lidl change all the pricing on their goods. At the moment, for example, a bar of chocolate in Tesco in West London will cost about £1.70. An identical bar of chocolate in towns such as Truro, Aberystwyth or Aberdeen will also cost £1.70.

Petrol prices will vary from the North of England to London but, on average, those living in rural areas have greater distances to travel and there are fewer means of public transport than in London and the cities.

So, Georgy Osborne, where's the living cost variation in such cases? How will you get public sector employers to tweak their pay rolls to match regional differentiation? It would be a nightmare! You'll have to increase the Accounts and Payroll departments' salaries!!!

The Mail Online had an article by Tim Shipman on this topic in December, under the headline: Public sector staff in lower paid regions facing wage cut as Osborne axes national pay deals

Shipman wrote:

Plans that could slash pay by up to 10 per cent for public sector workers in poorer parts of the country will be introduced within 16 months, George Osborne announced yesterday.

The Chancellor demanded an end to national pay rates for teachers, nurses, prison officers and civil servants by April 2013, ramping up the Government’s confrontation with the unions.

So, a teacher living in Tredegar will be paid a good deal less than one teaching in Guildford. We know that mortgages are higher in London and the Home Counties than in Wales but does this justify a regional pay differential?

The article continues:

The move was swiftly denounced by the unions. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘When the Chancellor talks about localised wage negotiations, what he really means are deep pay cuts in areas of high unemployment.

‘This will suck demand out of local economies, increase joblessness and worsen the north-south divide.’

Gail Cartmail, Unite’s assistant general secretary, said: ‘Employing public servants on the lowest possible pay is part of the Tory blueprint for privatisation.

‘George Osborne wants to drive down pay to clear the way for private companies to take over our public services.

‘There is absolutely no justification for a nurse in Newcastle being paid less than an equally qualified nurse in Oxford.’

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2071482/Public-sector-staff-lower-paid-regions-facing-wage-cut-Osborne-axes-national-pay-deals.html#ixzz1jeOTS6S2

Of course, the unions would feel angry at these threats to their members' well-being. But you must admit Georgy's idea is rather high-handed!

The web site Politics.co.uk also had an item on this same topic. Under the headline: Regional pay would drive down wages and depress economies it quoted the Public and Commercial Services Union as follows:

PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "Regional public sector pay is the exact opposite of what our local economies need.

"Instead of allowing pay to be driven down to the lowest level, ministers should be looking to increase pay and living standards of everyone, to put money in people's pockets to help our economy to grow."

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/pcs-public-and-commercial-services-union/article/regional-pay-would-drive-down-wages-and-depress-economies

All in all, Georgy, this seems like a bad idea! Conservatives have never been the flavour of the month in the far South-West, the North East, Wales or Scotland. Your plan of regional pay will alienate people from these regions still more.

The Coalition needs the LibDems. Their support has, in the past, been in the South-West, parts of Wales and Scotland. For once, 'Wailing Lad' Clegg has seen the light! He is against regional pay differentials! He knows that if this plan is implemented it's the end of the LibDems.

Maybe, however, Georgy, this is a cunning plan of yours, after all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with money! It's your way of totally wiping out the LibDems!! I'd watch it though, Georgy, sometimes the best laid plans of mice and men come back to bite them!! It might also wipe out the Tories as well.

Talking of mice ....

'Bye'

The 'Noble' Lord can't or won't answer the questions @ No 10

Arturo keeps a close eye on several blogs. He keeps returning to one called

Abetternhs

Which reads, in non blog speak, as 'A Better NHS'. He frequently shook his head as he read one of the recent posts. He turned to me and said:
"That Lord Howe bloke, the one who is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health - know who I mean?" I nodded. "It seems, he just will not answer questions. At any rate the sort of questions that might get problematic replies about this new Health and Social Care Bill! Take a look at this blog post!"

It seems that in October a number of health professionals, who are already tearing their hair out with frustration, sent Earl Howe a series of questions about issues they have with the Bill. This is one of the questions:

How does Earl Howe explain the comments he made at the Laing & Buisson Independent Healthcare Forum on 7 September (during the 3rd Reading) in which he informed the audience of private sector providers that there were big opportunities for them to make money by taking patients away from the NHS?

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/newsarticle-content/-/article_display_list/12663018/big-opportunities-for-private-sector-in-health-bill-says-minister

Ummm! 'big opportunities... to make money'. Didn't know that was the purpose of the NHS or even the Health and Social Care Bill! Then again, it probably won't be the NHS once this Bill becomes an Act!

Another question asked:

Several of the US companies which are hoping to come in to the NHS as either providers or commissioners have been in trouble for defrauding the US government. What safeguards will be put in place to stop them applying the same low business standards to their dealings with patients, GPs and the UK government?

http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/questions/

Oh Boy! Now there is a real concern! How come the 'Noble' Lord has not answered that? These shysters are hoping to come here to the UK and run the NHS!

There is a very worrying story about one such company in the Mirror. Netcare the parent company of the General Healthcare Group is actively lobbying for work in the 'reformed' NHS! Netcare is a South African company with what appears to be a very murky past. According to an article in the Mirror by Jason Beattie on September 6 2011:

A PRIVATE healthcare firm whose wealthy clients were given donor organs bought from children is in talks to run transplant operations for the NHS.

Department of Health officials have already had three meetings this year with representatives of the General Healthcare Group about taking over NHS work.

But a subsidiary of the General ­Healthcare Group – Netcare – was last year fined nearly £700,000 after pleading guilty to illegally transplanting human organs in South Africa.

Health Minister Simon Burns confirmed in a Parliamentary answer that government officials met with the company – which also owns BMI Healthcare – on January 27, April 14 and June 6. They are understood to have discussed possible bids for NHS contracts, including organ ­transplant operations.

Netcare admitted last November that it had recruited children to donate kidneys which were then transplanted to wealthy clients. More than 100 illegal operations were carried out at a hospital in Durban, South Africa, between 2001 and 2003.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/09/06/organ-selling-firm-in-nhs-talks-115875-23399313/#ixzz1jYYJ1IPL

What!!! Did I read that right? I don't believe it! The story also horrified Labour MP Gareth Thomas who was quoted in the article as saying:

“This case raises serious concerns about the future of the health service and David Cameron’s plans to allow a far greater number of unregulated private operators to run our health care.”

Other vital questions highlighted in Abetternhs query the ability of The Care Quality Commission to function adequately:

For the last year the CQC has recruited no-one with any medical qualifications for any of its management or inspection roles. The reason appears to be systematic under-funding and management which fails to protest about the fact that it has insufficient funding to do the job properly. The Bill puts the responsibility for technical inspection on to the underfunded and underskilled CQC and mandates no extra funding. Can Lord Howe please elaborate on how the system will be changing to safeguard patients properly?

http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/questions/

'Noble' Lord Howe - answer these questions! Your government is rushing headlong into a whirlpool of destruction.

In the Abetternhs blog, Dr Lucy Reynolds asks:

What safeguards are to be put in place to stop GPs denying patients treatment under the NHS (and retaining the money saved, as would be permitted by the Bill) then offering to give private treatment for the same complaint (as also permitted by the Bill). None are at present included in the Bill.

So! Lord Howe, what is your answer? Er ...er ... Sorry, I can't hear you! Er... can't you speak up? ... Still can't hear you?

The Abetternhs blog also asks about secure psychiatric care and the apparent lack of safeguards provided in the Bill. One question is:

What safeguards are to be put in place to protect the general public from being involuntarily admitted to profit-making secure mental hospitals which are paid by the number of inmates held?

Another question asked of Lord Howe is:

What safeguards are in place to prevent inmates of secure psychiatric facilities privatised under s13 from being pacified with drugs which have serious permanent side-effects, or with ECT, in order to enable lower levels of staffing to be maintained and more profits made?

http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/questions/

Lord Howe, can you hear me? What's your answer to the questions?

The 'Gracious' and 'Noble' Tory peer, Earl Howe has had these, and more, questions since October. So far, according to Abetternhs he has not yet addressed a single one.

What on earth does the government think it is doing? What does 'Silver Fox' Lansley think he is doing?

It is a fool or a charlatan who messes with the NHS and hopes to survive in one piece! A fool does not understand the potential fury that will be unleashed once the public really understand what is going on! A charlatan doesn't care. Why not? Because he assumes that by the time the sh** hits the fan, he will have joined the 'Noble' Lord Howe in the House of Lords and be untouchable!

'Bye'

"Help! Where's Nanny?" @ No 10?

"Lansley must be sweating!" Arturo chuckled. "He's damned if he does - and damned if he doesn't!"

"Doesn't what?" I asked.

"Meddle with this breast implant business!"

I decided to do a bit of investigating myself. It seems that private health care providers have got themselves into a jam over the breast implant affair. It may well have dire consequences for the new Health and Social Care Bill.

Most women who wanted enlargement of their breasts to enhance their self-esteem had this performed in private health clinics. Women who needed reconstructive surgery, after mastectomy, largely had this performed under the NHS. So far, so good, no dangers for 'Silver Fox' Lansley.

It now turns out that a French company called Poly Implant Protheses (PIP) supplied many of the implants over the last ten years. Instead of using medical grade silicon, they used industrial-grade silicon for the breast implants! I'm not sure I would fancy any silicon under my skin, thank you very much, but industrial-grade silicon is the pits!

That's exactly how the women felt too, when the facts were discovered. Not unnaturally, the women wanted the implants out and new ones put in!

Here comes the dilemma for our 'Silver Fox' Lansley, Secretary of State for Health. The French Government, facing an election this year, declared that every woman who wanted to have the implants removed, would be entitled to have this done at no cost to her. It seems that the French Government will cover the not inconsiderable expenditure. There are 30,000 women in France who may require the procedure. There are votes to be gained from this seeming altruistic act! Now, several other European countries have followed the French example. So what about here in the UK?

The UK is slap bang in the middle of a vast campaign to change the very nature of the NHS. Many health professionals see this as an attempt to privatise the entire service, despite Lansley's risible grunts of: 'No, it isn't!'

Now - along comes the ideal litmus test for the private health care providers to show what they're made of. Surely they will demonstrate the care and attention they pay to patients' needs. If so, the rest of us will be able to applaud and demand that these private health care providers take over the tattered old NHS. What an ace this would be for Lansley and his new Health and Social Care Bill!

So, guys and gals, how did they do? Did they provide the shining example of integrity and the duty of care? Well ... er ... no, actually!

Let's see what some of their leaders actually did say. The Chairman of the Harley Medical Group, Mel Braham, declared to the BBC:

"We don't have the resources to re-implant"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16510507

Yet, for over ten years, the Harley Medical Group made a good living, a very good living, carrying out almost 14,000 such PIP breast implants. Now, however, Mr Braham sounds quite distraught implying that if they were required to fulfill their obligations, the company would be in dire straits!

He obviously has not consulted his legal team or read the Sale of Goods Act 1979:

When you buy goods you enter into a contract with the seller of those goods. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 goods must be:
'as described',
'of satisfactory quality', and
'fit for purpose' – this means both their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller ...

Goods sold must also match any sample you were shown in-store, or any description in a brochure.

... In most cases, your rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer, and so you must take any claim against the retailer.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/your-rights/

Mel, these ladies want to return their faulty breast implants! The implants were not 'of satisfactory quality' nor were they 'fit for purpose' So - whatcha gonna do?

At this point - up to the podium steps our hero, Lansley. He declares that all the private health providers 'have a duty of care' to their patients. Ipso facto, they should replace the faulty implants. However, we know that the Harley Medical Group cannot or will not do this. Another clinic, Transform, is vacillating about the issue but seems likely to charge any unfortunate woman who wants the PIP implant taken out.

What will our hero, Lansley, do about these reluctant private health care providers ? He told the Guardian:

“We will pursue them extremely aggressively through the courts. We will go after them.”

The Guardian also reported:

The health secretary is inviting women refused free help to go to their GP, who will refer them to an NHS hospital for removal - although not replacement - if requested. However, Mr Lansley said taxpayers should not be meeting the cost and believes the private clinics are ignoring legitimate claims for help.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9009103/Health-Secretary-vows-to-sue-private-clinics-who-refuse-to-remove-faulty-implants.html

It now seems it is likely to cost tax-payers a lot of dosh to clear up the scandal created by these private health care providers! As one headline in the Daily Telegraph said:

Breast implant scandal taxpayers face £100 million bill : 9 in 10 women will use NHS; Nine in 10 women who had private breast enlargement operations with faulty implants are likely to have to resort to the NHS to get them removed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9008345/Breast-implant-scandal-9-in-10-women-will-use-NHS.html

£100 million! Oh dear! Mr Lansley just pause for a moment in your wild headlong rush to unravel the NHS.

Will he do this? I ask myself. Mr Lansley and many others in the Tory Party have a pet hate. They abhor what they refer to as the 'Nanny State'. Their belief is that the market will 'rule OK'. But events last year showed all too clearly the falsity of that axiom. Sadly, not only is it wrong, it has disastrous consequences for vulnerable people.

The fiasco of the Southern Cross Care Homes highlighted the flaw in the argument that the market performs best. The Guardian in December had the headline:

MPs fear rerun of Southern Cross care home scandal

Committee says government has failed to make clear what will happen if another provider gets into financial difficulty

The article stated that:

Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who chairs the public accounts committee, said: "Local authority budgets are shrinking and large-scale providers are racking up debt – Four Seasons Health Care, for instance, carries nearly £1bn of debt – yet the department is not monitoring their financial health.

"It is deeply worrying that the department has not made clear what will happen when providers fail. This is crucial to protect frail and vulnerable users of care."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/06/mps-fear-rerun-southern-cross-scandal

The key phrase here is: 'the department has not made clear what will happen when providers fail'. The same statement would equally apply to the breast implant debacle. Certain 'providers' will fail and again will call for 'Nanny'?

Fortunately Nanny in the form of the NHS is still around to pick up the pieces and give succour. However, if Lansley and his chums have their way, Nanny will be defunct like the Dead Parrot. What will happen then?

When I told Arturo my conclusions, he shook his head sadly. Funny lot, these political humans!

'Bye'

It wasn't me, guv, honest! @ No 10

Arturo kept shaking his head at the radio. He was tuned in to BBC Radio4. He turned to me and said. "All our PM is really saying is: 'It wasn't me, Guv, honest!'"

It was so true. 'Boy David' Cameron's BBC 'Today' programme interview with Evan Davies was a wild attempt to prove:

1. It wasn't me, guv, what got us into this mess, in the first place!
2. It was them lot what gone before us - they done it!
3. Those pesky Europeans have gone and messed up mi plans to get us 'back on track'!

When perky Evan Davies reminded Cameron that he always criticised Gordon Brown for popping up and making announcements about things not his direct concern, Cameron tried to bat the accusation away.

So, let's find what were some of the things Cameron said in his New Year speech:

I will be bold about working to cure the problems of our society. While a few at the top get rewards that seem to have nothing to do with the risks they take or the effort they put in, many others are stuck on benefits, without hope or responsibility. So we will tackle excess in the City just as we’re reforming welfare to make work pay and support families.

I profoundly believe that we can turn these things around. That’s what I mean by the Big Society. The British people have got what it takes – and the government has got the ideas and policies we need.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/2012-new-year-message-from-david-cameron/

In fact, 'Boy David' Cameron pontificates all the time about everything that he personally, in his guise as Superman, is going to solve. The topics range from the way families should interact; how parents should parent; how nurses should nurse; how old people are to be looked after.

How marvellous all this sounds. Great sound bites! However, how is it all going to be done? As far as the logistics are concerned it seems all UK subjects should look after each other! Hang on! Where are the resources to make all this possible, apart from lots of eyewash about the Big Society?

Clearly, the matters Cameron raises are essential aspects of life, we would all agree. Are they, however, the direct and proper place for a Prime Minister to stick his oar in? Well, er ... no, actually! Unless, of course, you advocate the Nanny State. We all know that Cameron abhors the prospect of a Nanny State. Hasn't he told us so - many times. Nanny States cost loads of dosh - and this Coalition does NOT want to spend any extra dosh on welfare or benefits.

And while we're talking - what about the bankers and the City? Give 'em a big hand, one and all! They certainly give themselves one - and a big bonus to boot! What was it that our beloved PM said in his New Year message

"... we will tackle excess in the City ...".

Great! Terrific idea! But exactly what is PM Cameron going to do about it?

Mr Cameron, you've told the nurses how to nurse. You've told youngsters how they need to get qualifications and find a job. It seems you have even talked to the bankers! Why aren't you in the City, every day, ensuring that the bankers cease grabbing the money and start lending it to small businesses?

Now, that is something a PM must talk about and act upon. Why are we waiting ... oh why are we waiting ...? Nothing done yet to stop the City rot. It's already past Twelfth Night!

Never mind, eh! Remember what you said in the New Year message:

The British people have got what it takes.

.
The worry for us all, Prime Minister Cameron, is - have you?

'Bye'

No whips, please, we're British @ No 10

"Cor Blimey! Just take a look at this!" Arturo was frantically waving both the Daily Mail and the Mirror above his head. "Take a gander at the dolly!"

Now this sort of language and enthusiasm is not typical of Arturo. Supreme rat-catcher that he is, females do not normally interest him. This time he was wild-eyed with excitement.

"She's one of the Cameron cuties! Imagine that! A Cameron Cutie on the front page of GQ magazine and in several red-tops!"

"Who is?" I asked.

"That Mensch woman! The one who stares dreamily into the cameras, when she's on those Select Committees on tele - you know!"

"Well, what's she done now?" I asked.

"She's all over the papers - nearly every one has a picture, or pictures, of her. Take a look."

He was right. In the Mirror, there was the headline:

Louise Mensch hits out at Tories for not promoting her

Tom McTague wrote:

In an explosive interview which will risk the wrath of the PM, ...
The mother-of-three, who has only been an MP for 20 months, complained she is always ignored for any parliamentary private secretary roles, the lowest rung on the government ladder.

Mrs Mensch, who also posed for a photo-shoot in skintight skirt and shirt, said: “Every time there is a raft of PPS promotions and my name is not on them, I have to sit down and think, ‘What am I doing wrong?’”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/01/03/louise-mensch-hits-out-at-tories-for-not-promoting-her-115875-23675239/#ixzz1iVwTg9n7

Victoria Ward in the Daily Telegraph had a similar story under the headline:

Louise Mensch complains that female MPs are judged on looks;
Louise Mensch, the Conservative MP, has spoken of her frustration at being overlooked for promotion, claiming that female politicians were “trivialised.”

The article quoted Mrs Mensch as saying:

"It's kind of annoying,” she said. “What do I have to do to get promoted over here? Am I being disloyal? I don't know. I need to sit down with my whip and say, 'What do I have to do?'

Wow! I thought, now that's an image to conjure with - Louise Mensch sitting down with her 'whip' and asking 'what do I have to do?'.

These Tory ladies! They make your blood race. What images they conjure up! And what a way they do have with words!

Victoria Ward went on to write in her article:

The MP for Corby said she hoped one day to "have a crack at International Development".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8988966/Louise-Mensch-complains-that-female-MPs-are-judged-on-looks.html

The Mensch lady is a great one for the 'whip', isn't she? First she asks what she has to do with her whip! Soon after, she wants to "have a crack at International Development"! This eager lady shouldn't be in International Development. She might frighten the horses! What she needs to be is in the Foreign Office to 'whip' all those pesky Europeans into some semblance of order.

I decided to find out more about Mrs Louise Mensch MP. We know she is a very new MP with considerable ambition. She is also a not inconsiderable writer of chick lit! This blonde bombshell of a Corby MP has written several books under her previous name of Louise Bagshawe. There are titles such as:

When She Was Bad
Career Girls
Passion
Glitz

http://www.louisebagshawebooks.com/books.html

There are many others titles such as the one intriguingly called 'Venus Envy' (I'm sure Herr Dr Freud would have something to say about that!)

Still, the lady is nothing if not feisty! I just hope that 'Boy David' Cameron keeps a level head. Before he knows it, this galloping major of a woman, with PR skills like hers, will be aiming to run the country. If she does it as a 'Career Girl' who 'When She Was Bad' had 'Passion' and 'Glitz' who's to say where the UK will end up?

'Bye'

I'm-alright-Jack @ No 10

"Isn't it strange how it's often those who 'have it all' who tell those who 'have very little' exactly how to lead their lives?" Arturo commented as he read the Daily Telegraph. I guessed I was in for an explanation. I got one.

It seems that Policy Exchange, which is according to the Telegraph a 'right of centre think tank', has just produced a pamphlet. It was written by Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College.

Christopher Hope writing for the Telegraph states:

A pamphlet published by Policy Exchange says that by reviving Mr Cameron’s Big Society idea will allow him to win back the trust of the British public.

The news came amid suggestions that a group of Mr Cameron’s key advisers – including his senior adviser Steve Hilton and strategy director Andrew Cooper – have been tasked with relaunching the Big Society strategy in 2012.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8987113/David-Camerons-premiership-lacks-coherent-agenda-says-Policy-Exchange-report.html

Arturo and I thought that this 'Big Society' idea had been consigned to the dustbin. However, we now have this Master of Wellington College advising 'Boy David' Cameron how to get his 'Big Society' to work.

"This we must read!" Arturo said. So I downloaded a pdf of the whole pamphlet so we could read it for ourselves!
(http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/)

We also listened to an item about this topic on the 'Today' programme via theBBC iPlayer. Anthony Seldon was interviewed about the pamphlet which is entitled: 'The Politics of Optimism'.

On this programme he said:

" We have to learn to make do with less; to learn to be happier with less consumer goods, with less material affluence ..."

In the actual pamphlet on pages 8 - 9. Anthony Seldon wrote:

It is perfectly possible to be happy, indeed happier, with the current or even reduced levels of affluence. It merely requires an adjustment in thinking.

"An adjustment in thinking! Huh!" I exclaimed.

I wonder if the family whose bread winner has just been made redundant will be able to make that 'adjustment in thinking'?

Will the soldier, who returning home from the frontline only to be told he is no longer wanted, be able to make this 'adjustment in thinking'?

Will the homeless who sleep rough in doorways opposite Charing Cross Station even know how to make the required 'adjustment in thinking'?

One wonders what's going on in the head of this Master of Wellington College. Is he seriously suggesting that bankers drooling at the prospect of fat bonuses will be prepared to even countenance an 'adjustment in thinking'?

Anthony Seldon has written a rather academic pamphlet for the bourgeoisie and the cognoscenti to mull over whilst sipping their port and savouring the stilton. But for the unemployed, those made redundant, the homeless, the weak, the sick and the old, this pamphlet will be dismissed as a cruel irrelevance.

'Twas ever thus - those who 'have', telling those who 'have very little' to be 'happy with what little you have.'

Arturo went boss-eyed from reading the pdf on the small laptop screen. He looked at me and twitched his tail. "C'mon, pal, I've read enough of this twaddle - what's this bloke think he's doing? All this 'Politics of Optimism' smacks of telling Granny to suck eggs! Let's go and do something useful. We'll get the leftovers from the kitchen!"

So - that's what we did.

'Bye' from us both.