Save our NHS: What Lansley said in the House of Commons

 I have just sent this email to ‘my’ MP Ian Liddlell-Grainger:

‘No doubt you have received many emails asking you to oppose the Health and Social Care Bill. I was sorry not to see you speaking on the floor of the House of Commons against this Bill. Please could you tell me if you did in fact oppose this Bill and if not why not?

Sadly many incorrect statements were made by the government on the floor of the House yesterday and I wish to draw your attention to these. You can find the details here:

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2011/09/08/save-our-nhs-what-lansley-said-in-the-house-of-commons/

I am deeply concerned that it seems possible for the government to distort the facts and for MPs to ignore the opinions and wishes of their constituents as you appear to be doing.

Please reply and explain to me whether you agree democracy in England is broken and how the government can be held to account for making incorrect statements in Parliament.’

Rob, You can check which way MPs voted on Hansard under Parliamentary Business – Publications and Records click on the relevant ‘Divisions’ . As you probably suspected Ian Liddell-Grainger DID NOT oppose the Bill! So much for Democracy when MPs don’t represented their constituents wishes.

Thanks Jan. Yes, after some research, I did find out how he voted through Hansard, as you said, and, of course, it was with the government.

I have written to Ian Liddell-Grainger MP on many issues and have never had any sort of sensible reply. He’s one of these extremely safe seat MPs and I would think has very little incentive to make any sort of effort for his constituents, based on my experience of him.

My researches about him this morning indicated that he seems to believe the UK taxation system should be replaced by one similar to the American system so it is no surprise that he seems to be  supporting the condemnation of our NHS to be like the American system too.

Sadly, not replying to inconvenient questions is a nasty tactic that is not only used by people like Liddell-Grainger but is also used by councillors at Local Government level and I have even experienced it with the Civil Service.

I think our broken democracy would be a very good subject for a campaign. The whole consultation system is completely flawed. The lobby system favours big corporations with lots of money and, in my experience, once elected, representatives, whether at local government level or national level, consider they can do what they, or the whips in their party, like with only lip service paid to those that vote.

In fact, in my opinion, constituencies like Bridgwater have a lot in common with the historic rotten boroughs as the seat is so safe that when an MP is allocated to it by his party system, he’s then got a job for life. As far as many people could see at the last General Election, Liddell-Grainger did not campaign at all, much to the annoyance of the other parties who wanted to debate issues with him, and he still romped away with a large majority.

Sadly, it should not be surprising to us that a flawed and broken democratic system should produce flawed and bad legislation

I have read all what Mr Langley, 38 Degrees entries and the other people contribution in above and it appears to me we have gone a long way towards helping putting some safe guards to our NHS future, however, I take the point that our vigilence should not be wavered as thw Bill goes through the House of Lords (H.o.L.).

I am afraid I not know of any H.o.L. who represents my area of Luton & Dunstable (South Bedfordshire) except that there an MP his name escapes at the moment but he was a conservative MP, very, and owned either storage or transportation businesses or even may  pharmacuitical busniness as his co moved in into the premises of Rouch here in Dunstable, however, that may be only coincidental. I believe he is now in the H.o.L.

Please proceed to fight on our behalf those who care about the NHS dearly & need it to do the purpose it was created for and not a vehicle to cream of money from.

I was asked who I was before I posted this I did not respond earlier now I am finished,

Yours,

Naji Georges,
najigeorges@aol.com

My MP, the Right Honourable Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, Stephen Crabb, also did not respond to my written request for information regarding his voting intentions. “Right Honourable”? I think that the title is a throwback to when, perhaps, we really DID have some honourable MP’s sitting in the House of Commons who voted according to conscience, and were not driven to vote by the actions of their party Whips.

Stephen bangs on about our local hospital, Withybush General, regularly. Sadly, this hospital has been under threat in one way or another for several years: closure to enable another much larger establishment to be built which would serve both Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire – potentially thirty miles away from where Withybush is situated now in Haverfordwest, the county town of Pembrokeshire, where it is centrally positioned to serve the whole of Pembrokeshire. Several departments within the hospital have been under threat of closure at one time or another; one or two departments have been closed or moved to hospitals much farther away from Pembrokeshire (Swansea for instance, over a hundred miles away) but our local hospital remains open to serve local folk.

Withybush hospital is a most excellent hospital, with extremely good services and equipment. It is quite a large establishment and has, in my opinion a most wonderful staff of doctors and nurses. My wife, who has severe disability problems with heart and lung issues, and diabetes, which together cause her great physical problems, has spent several weeks in there this year alone. She was taken seriously ill in early 2007 and spent eight weeks in the hospital. I truly believe that her life was saved by the actions of the staff in Withybush. There is much active support for the hospital locally and, I believe, this has helped to stem the rush for centralisation of medical establishments in our part of Wales.

Stephen Crabb has supported the actions of the hospital staffs and the citizens of the county in the past in the fight against closure of the hospital, or departmental closure, or movement of various medical disciplines to other far-away centres. It seems an awful pity that though he will aid in these battles, he seems not to understand that the whole of the British health service – OUR NHS – is to be threatened with privatisation by his own government, and he supports this mad scheme which can only potentially harm ALL hospitals and staffs throughout the United Kingdom. What fools these people are!

In continuation of my earlier comment, and sadly, I forgot the fact that my MP, Mr. Crabb, IS a Conservative Party whip serving in the Coalition. I wondered if this ballot by our MP’s was based on a “free vote” principle, in which case a vote based on conscience would have been fair. But then again, perhaps I give this government far too much credit for “fairness”, when it seems that the word does not seem to fit into any of their vocabularies… 

On the subject of our broken democracy, it has just occurred to me that the extent to which Lansley and other MPs in the Commons have attacked the messenger shows clearly the extent to which they don’t want reasoned argument.

Indeed, if the government would provide a forum or forums in which MPs were required to discuss points about legislation with their constituents – or even experts outside their constituencies – so that everybody could see the developing debate, organisations like 38 Degrees, which many in Parliament see to so much dislike, would be unnecessary.

Government often claims that they want to involve the public in political debate and they even complain when voters are disinterested and don’t bother to vote but, as soon as voters do get involved and start engaging in detailed and intelligent discussion, they seem to complain bitterly.

I suspect that this applies to all parties and, by the way, definitely at local government level, so this is in no way a party political point.

Sadly, the level of the government’s complaints over the public’s contribution to the Health and Social Care Bill suggests that they would prefer to be able to ignore their voters and carry on working diligently only for their corporate lobbies.

Mr. Lansley is clearly rattled and has done what all politicians do when challenged: they resort to smear and abuse.  What 38degrees has not so far made a point of is the simple fact that none of the plans for the NHS was in the Tory election manifesto for 2010 nor in that of the Liberal Democrats. Why? And why is the government devoting so much time and energy to a non-manifesto policy? This is what gives rise to serious suspicion of its intentions.

Hi Rob,

I too sent a letter to ILG, as one of his unfortunate consitituents, and received a “posh” letter back clearly the Govt standard issue reply, basically, smearing the campaign of 38 degrees with the usual dodgy tactics, and hiding behind a barrage of paragraphs and sub paragraphs, so cleverly written that for the most part, unless your in the business of law, would confuse the hell out of the average citizen.  As you say, he is in a safe seat and does little if indeed anything to earn the gross amount he claims in expenses.  Unfortunately, this attitude also seems to exist within the local council, who ignore just about everything the local people want, the local swimming pool, and “Tesco’s to name but a few on the list.  Our Govt and its morals sadly continues to demise, at the expense of those people whom it is supposed to serve, and who are only interested in their lining their own pockets!!!  Our economy continues to shrink, the poverty continues to grow, and our so called leaders watch carelessly from afar, so far removed from the real world, they may as well be on Mars!!

As a retired GP, I am sad that the wonderful, if flawed, health service I worked in for so long is now under such threat.  As an Englishman, I am ashamed of the terrible state that our democracy has fallen.  Our wretched House of Commons is barely representative and the executive tries (and succeeds) in deceiving the public on its real intentions by a combination of lies, half-truths and tricks – all intended to camouflage their real agenda.  They know they cannot get the support for their real intentions if they were made clearly explicit.  To me, this is virtually dictatorship by deception.

Here is a link for you all to ask questions of Laing and Buisson who hosted Lord Howe’s anti-NHS speech:

http://www.healthinsurance.co.uk/news/2011/Sep/private-medical-providers-could-take-over-chunks-of-the-nhs.html

This is somewhat typical of the Minister and indeed this government and my local MP, who refused to accept that there was a major problem with the bill. His response to my email was to say the least patronising and ignored the facts. Obviously he is towing the government/party line. I have already put him on notice, that if he votes for the bill in the commons, then he can no longer assume my support come the next general election. He has a solid conservative majority and was only opposed by a Liberal Democratic candidate in the last election. I have, and still am engaging people in my constituency of Harborough to make them aware that was this government is attempting by subterfuge, is to privatis the NHS. The results for the majority will be catastrophic, we will end up with a two tier health service run on American lines with third world safety net for those unable to afford the costs. This bill, based purely on profit motives must be opposed line by line.

Comment from Dr Clare Gerada, Chair of the Royal College
of General Practitioners (RCGP)

7 September 2011

“We understand that the RCGP’s position on the healthcare reforms
was raised during Prime Minister’s Question Time today.”

“To reiterate our position; the College supports putting
clinicians at the centre of planning health services. However, we
continue to have a number of concerns about the government’s
reforms, issues which we believe may damage the NHS or limit the
care we are able to provide for our patients. These concerns have
been outlined and reiterated pre- and post-pause.

“As a College we are extremely worried that these reforms, if
implemented in their current format, will lead to an increase in
damaging competition, an increase in health inequalities, and to
massively increased costs in implementing this new system.

“As independent research demonstrates, the NHS is one of the
most efficient healthcare systems in the world and we must keep it
that way. “‬

38 degrees has obviously got the government worried. I suspect that they have gone over your legal team’s conclusions forensically in a desperate bid to discredit your objections to the Bill. My local MP Bob Neill used these exact same arguments to discredit you in reply to the email I sent him. The Conservative’s are slippery customers, and totally lacking in integrity, the PM claiming ‘he never knew about Andy Coulson’, ‘never knew about Lord Ashcroft and his offshore tax havens. Zac Goldsmith doesn’t pay his taxes in this country. All in this together? Not likely!! The fact that George Osbourne is also less than straight forward about his taxes and the PM allows this, speaks volumes about this Government. David Cameron thinks he can con us with his spin, but like most polititians they take us for idiots and we are not.  Keep up the fight. I will support you.

“Trade union proxy” would have made me laugh if it wasnt possible that some will believe it. It looks like legal advice is an effective tactic, though its probably not always the ideal route for people donations. More ads with people in top hats please!

My Mp Stephen Phillips wrote org 38 off as a load of ‘lefties’! He probably meant ‘commies’ as the leftist party in Britain for the last 5 years has been his coalition buddies the ‘Lib Dems’.  He is a lawyer and it  was he that supplied the amo for Lansley to slander the org 38 protests. In a reply to my petitions he stated that ‘He wanted a NHS to provide for his grandchildren as it had provided for him’!  Make sense of that if you can!… So its ok for him but for the grandchildren we’ll turn it on its head spend a few billion on it and then hope the markets will sort it out!!  Nonesensical!   No manifesto pledge this just a shot in the ideological dark!   Now unfortunately we relying on that other great, but un-elected body, the H.O.L to salvage something!

I have this evening emailed the BBC to inquire to ask why there appears to be almost complete lack of mention or discussion of the outcome of Wednesday’s Commons vote. I have had to consult other UK news sources to see this. For something as important in its implications that this attempted reform has for the interests of the British public, there is a deplorable lack of coverage – which smacks of avoidance. The impression is that elements of the media are quietly toe-ing the line in order to avoid vigorous public protest – while the wolves scatter the sheep in their aggressive self-interest.
Be under no illusion – this Govt. has no genuine belief or interest of a GP-led health service succeeding – it simply removes an administrative tier (the Trusts) that is then vacant for favoured private companies to step into. This ‘smash-and-grab’ administration will continue to arrogantly push forward without regard to majority or expert opinion to the contrary, as the individuals that run it know that they must achieve their aims quickly before the game is rumbled. We can not depend on the Lords thwarting the plan. Aside from a few individuals in this un-elected upper chamber, it too will toe the line of self-interest. How many Lords, I wonder, have private health care, as opposed to NHS?
38 Degrees’ lobbying efforts are laudable, and may they continue to grow in scope and specific focus. However, it does begin to seem that the only really effective way to get this message across to this govt. and to the public at large is to make a visible and presence in terms of an overwhelming NHS-dedicated protest in London, with a system of registration to protect the cause and the genuine, peaceful & law-abiding against potential highjack by unconnected elements as so sadly seen recently on our streets. The cherished and essential NHS is too important to stop at half-measures.

Samuel Johnson had the likes of Cameron and Osborne summed up a long time ago, when he said this:

‘The general error of those who possess powerful and elevated understandings is,
that they form schemes of too great extent, and flatter themselves too hastily
with success; they feel their own force to be great, and, by the complacency
with which every man surveys himself, imagine it still greater: they therefore
look out for undertakings worthy of their abilities, and engage in them with
very little precaution; for they imagine that, without premeditated measures,
they shall be able to find expedients in all difficulties. They are naturally
apt to consider all prudential maxims as below their regard, to treat with
contempt those securities and resources which others know themselves obliged to
provide, and disdain to accomplish their purposes by established means and
common gradations.’   August 14, 1750

And they do this in public, in broad daylight, and under your very nose. And all the time, the man who afforded them this opportunity sits quietly – without attracting attention – on the sidelines of the front bench. Your position and your party’s, please, Mr Clegg, on this blatant scouring of the NHS?

Reading the Hansard extracts and 38 Degrees [red] text it is so obvious that the Governments intention is to obfuscate so much that they eventually get their way e.g. “It’s for the Courts to decide”. Meanwhile these evil politicians will position themselves so as to line their pockets and handbags by asset stripping what the Englands taxpayers have created over decades, effectively asset stripping the peoples well-being. Putting Health aside for one moment what we have is an extremely nasty Government. This is frightening - if they get away with the NHS changes what next?
As some other posts suggest we must campaign about Democracy.

i now know that after recieving correspondence from my local conservative m.p justine greening,that whatever assurences m.p’s make,in the end the majority will tow the party line,and disregard the opinions of the british people that voted them in to their seats.

There is another issue which links in with the privatisation of the NHS. It is an issue which may, I believe, have implications for ALL of the issues that relate to this coalition governments’ actions; its ability to continue on with privatisation programmes and be almost untouchable in its attempts to change the way that we perceive our form of democracy. It has not yet, as far as I know, been addressed by 38 Degrees, or any of the other like-minded organisations. It concerns the ability of this Coalition (certainly the majority Conservative element of it) to remain in government by hook or by crook by modifying the number of parliamentarians residing in the House of Commons, and by dint of electoral boundary changes.

Changes to the way that the NHS operates is just one of the issues currently on the Coalition agenda. If the Government is successful in bringing this about, then I’m certain that other “national administrative projects” will be raised. In my opinion that is why we NEED to stop this attempted privatisation of the NHS, and curtail other of the so-called “improvements” to our health service intended by Cameron and Lansley et al. In a short while a decision is to be made which will cut the number of MP’s in the House of Commons from 650 to 600. The electorate has been broadly in favour of this because of the effects of the expenses scandals of the past, and because cuts in expenditure on politics are seen as being the way to go. However, It is already apparent that the north of England is receiving a much smaller share of the national cake than areas in the south: financing of local councils; public service employees’ jobs; the effect on major businesses (Bombardier for instance). If this form of “favouritism” also hits at political representation through the cutting of MP’s seats and/or boundary changes, democracy will suffer – and what can be done in the north of england CAN be done anywhere in the UK! The majority of voters in the UK did not vote for a Conservative government, neither did they vote for a Liberal Democrat one. We did NOT vote for a coalition of both of them.

The NHS may JUST be the start: do we really want to see the creation of a government that CANNOT be thrown out of office without a landslide ballot against them being made by the voting public? Sadly, I do not believe that the Coalition will take note of any of the criticisms raised against them by either the public or by interested parties who aim to defend the current status of the NHS – why should they? They have almost four years left before a general election may be called. The LibDems’ are enjoying a moment of power not had for many years; the Conservatives are proving to be the most right-wing party for generations.

I apologize for taking the sole argument away from the NHS - the direct concern of all of us – but I see other dangers looming IF a “win” situation arises from the gerrymandering of the political facts of NHS changes intended by this Coalition. Would the leadership of 38 Degrees agree that my opinion has some merit, please? And if so, please pick up the challenge and run with it. The whole issue worries me greatly…  

As an mp Lansley should not tell parliament untruths, so hands off our NHS Lansley no private medicine here. 

ST, I too emailed the BBC regarding the paucity of information both on their website and in newscasts. Needless to say I have not had a reply. It was interesting to note that the last item for debate in HoC that day was entitled ‘Future of the BBC’. Perhaps the lack of reporting of the Health & Social Care Bill & this item are connected, or perhaps I just have a suspicious mind?!!

 Received from a Sarah Williams in reply to my letter to Tim Yeo
“DICTATED BY TIM YEO MP AND SENT ON HIS BEHALF:
 
Thank you for your recent email on the Health and Social Care Bill.
 
I supported the Government’s proposals as I believe it is necessary to modernise the NHS to safeguard the future of our health service.
 
Putting health professionals at the heart of decision making in the NHS will ensure services are developed to best meet the needs of patients. Clinical commissioning groups will have a duty to promote integrated health and social care and the Secretary of State will continue to be responsible – as now – for promoting a comprehensive health service. Lastly the Bill does not change current UK or EU competition legislation or procurement legislation or the areas to which they apply.”

A bland catchall and non specific reply that tells us nothing except that he supported the government, as expected.    We all know that modernisation and the involvement of health professionals at the heart of decision making is essential, we also know that the government plans go against the views of health professionals.
 

Johnny Chatterton’s article should be sent to every Lord and Baroness. It’s clear, concise and cuts through the political confusion.  I’m sure they’d appreciate its accessibility. 

A very large part of me just thinks we should let the government get on with it, and then crush them later if it all goes belly-up.  Then another large part of me reminds the first large part of me that politicians are almost never to be trusted.

This debate  shows the complexity and controversy of continuing arguments against  disadvantages of the proposed Lansley Bill.  Showing how important it is that 38 Degrees takes an opportunity to obtain further and better advice from its legal advisors and lawyers  who have provided  crucial legal opinions for MP’s briefings and public information to date.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that coverage of this crucial debate is conspicuous by its absence from BBC news and that this is worrying, I disagree that a public protest along the line of OCCUPY is the way forward on this issue.  The ‘OCCUPY’ protests have their place.  The one in London has gained much sympathy and support from all sections of the public and has been a PR disaster for the religious wing of the British Establishment (i.e. CofE), but it has not forced politicians to answer informed legal challenges through formal public debate in our democratically elected lower chamber in the way that the 38 degrees campaign has.   Andrew Lansley’s whine of ‘Liar’ in response to the 38 Degrees campaigning has all the hallmarks – both in language and in tone, of somebody who has been wrong-footed. 
I have marched through London in protest against proposed government cuts to the public sector twice in the last year and recently joined a lobby of parliament against PS pension cuts, but I never feel quite as empowered taking this kind of action as I do when I am writing to my ‘adopted’ Lord with regard to the Health and Social Care Bill.  Over twenty years working in schools in London I have learned that if you want to fight your corner or bring about change you have to learn to speak to the ‘powers that be’ in their own language and that is exactly what 38 Degrees is doing by seeking legal advice.  The ‘protest-too-much’ response from Andrew Lansley in the extract from Hansard quoted in Johnny Chatterton’s blog re-assures me in no way that the NHS is out of danger, but it does encourage me to go on fighting in the knowledge that I am in the good company of thousands of  well-informed like-minded souls.   

Lib Dems, sitting on the fence…

Thank you very much for contacting me about the latest campaign from “38 Degrees” regarding the NHS risk register.

Liberal
Democrats have always been strong supporters of the right for
individuals to obtain certain Government information through Freedom of
Information (FOI) requests. This is why our party supported a commitment
to introduce a Freedom of Information Act in our 1997 manifesto. During
the last parliament, we also campaigned to ensure that the last Labour
Government were not simply allowed to veto FOI requests as and when it
suited their needs. However, we also recognise that the Government has a
right itself to appeal a decision when they believe that potentially
sensitive information could be compromised, or if it would prevent open
and frank discussion between policy makers. It is therefore important
that we consider the request for the release of the Department of
Health’s risk register within this context.

The risk register
sets out all of the potential risks identified by the Department of
Health for the entire range of areas for which it is responsible. These
include financial risks, policy risks and sensitive commercial and
contractual risks.  It is a common tool used to manage and mitigate
risks, so that they do not in practice materialise. This practice also
took place under the last Labour Government. Therefore, whilst we do
recognise the public interest in this information, we must also give
careful consideration as to what the unintended consequences could be if
a decision was taken to release risk registers in the future.  One such
possibility could be that the most significant risks will no longer be
recorded, and no solution or mitigating action will therefore be
identified. There is also the danger that the vital advice given to
Ministers of the risks connected with policy decisions would be
compromised, given that officials would inevitably be hesitant to record
meaningful risks in the future. It may also inadvertently make staff
unwilling to report bad news to their senior management and ministers,
all of which could have potentially devastating consequences.

As
identified above, this is therefore not just about a Department of
Health risk-register but about risk registers across Government
containing financially and contractually sensitive information. Given
the precedent this decision would set across the Government, it is
understandable that the Department of Health is currently considering
its response to the Information Commissioner’s decision. They are
expected to respond to the decision in early December.
On
the specific issue of the Health and Social Care Bill, The Department
of Health is required to be open and transparent about the effects the
Health of Social Care Bill will deliver, through the publication of
impact assessments and ministerial statements. These are published and
have been updated as recently as September. I would encourage you to
view these through the Department of Health’s website, here: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsLegislation/DH_123583
Health Minister Earl Howe has also stated in the House of Lords that he
is willing to look into the possibility of seeing if there are any
risks in the Risk. 
Yours sincerely Nick Clegg MP

So we need to be aware that the government will sit on the risk register until early December. Watch this space. We truly have bosses in power, don’t we? Clegg’s response is hardly one of a democratically elected and accountable politician.

Meanwhile general practitioners are just being made aware that they too will find their role in the new NHS is to be sidelined to the very margins of patient care: there was an informative piece about this on C4 last night.

This drip-drip-drip of information is utterly cynical. It means that parliamentary debate is being deliberately stymied by Clegg, Cameron, Lansley Ltd (we’re talking business bosses getting their own way not democracy).

This information was revealed last Thursday and GPs are becoming even more alarmed.

How come we don’t seem to have any way of dealing with this situation?

i had the same reply from my liberal mp, so who are the Zombies !

Have a look on Russia Today’s site, http://rt.com/news/uk-health-service-reforms-519/
What a pity the BBC or ITV  could not have reported on it this way.
It seems strange that the only way you can find anything out properly is via the Internet.
That is why I believe a lot of the population who do now own a computer are completely oblivious to what is actually going on.  Thanks to a blackout of news on the TV.  Even the Teachers protesting about their pensions has got more airtime on the news.