April 24 brought Lord Philip Hunt’s motion against the Health and Social Care Act Secondary Legislation Section 75 - a rarely achieved format in the Lords, only allowed in exceptional circumstances.
April 24 brought Lord Philip Hunt’s Pray Debate fatal motion against the Health and Social Care Act Secondary Legislation Section 75 – a rarely achieved format in the Lords, only allowed in exceptional circumstances.
Lords on all sides had been inundated with letters and emails of concern – not just, as Shirley Williams said in what must count as one of the most disingenuous speeches this parliament, due to “a blizzard” of distortion “extensively spread via social networks”, but because more and more of the general public had gained an understanding of basic procurement law.
If the law says that a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) may allocate a clinical service to a sole provider as long as none other are capable of running the service, then it stands to reason that the CCG will be more concerned with how to prove that when challenged than just going for the simple route of selecting their own long term preferred provider.
Far from the 40 staff of Monitor being equipped to block a legal avalanche, or Regulations 2 and 3 overriding errant 5, this is a lawyers-cum-privatisation charter which can only be stopped by CCGs undertaking the very tendering the coaltion are pretending they are preventing – whilst of course setting them up to do exactly that.
The Lib Dems decided that they would once again portray themselves as saviours of the faulty elements of the legislation – although some stared ahead in a rather fixed manner whilst Lord Clement-Jones and Shirley Williams spoke of the wondrous things they had done and of the terrible injustice in criticising their efforts.
Perhaps they had been hypnotised. Earl Freddie Howe turned his head from his front bench to fix his gaze upon Baroness Williams as she spoke – in part needy, in part threatening. Hopefully he had a crick in his neck afterwards.
They continually stated that their own changes in March, meant no change since 2010 – conveniently ‘forgetting’ that the introduction of the Health & Social Care Act has changed everything. If no change – why bother with the Act or Section 75 at all? Do they think we didn’t notice? Probably.
Lord Warner (of Lewisham ) was overtly the most audacious of the night – not for him the mealy mouthed meanderings of the Lib Dems. Everything he has been saying in private, came to the fore in publicly disowning Labour’s efforts. This man is all about competition and the ‘managed market’ – he clearly stated he was “with Earl Howe” before sinking low in his seat to mutterings of disapproval. Let us hope that the party soon disowns him in return.
Although Lord Hunt presented an excellent case, the whipped Lib Dems declared solidarity with Earl Howe, which sadly meant he really knew that it was lost before he started. The Tories had dragged out all of Thatcher’s old contemptibles and from the conspiratorial looks being shot across the chamber, it was evident that Shirley Williams had worked her ‘magic’ on a couple of key cross benchers – where there were also notable abstentions.
The most moving speech of the night came from Lord Owen – who spoke strong and true and visibly elicited more than a solitary tear when he mourned
‘tonight I feel one feeling only: overwhelming sadness’.
The debate in full: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130424-0003.htm.
64 Responses to “The ultimate betrayal – Shirley Williams and the Lib Dems hit the NHS where it hurts”
Kerry
If you wish to compare todays health care to the one in Victorian times then you have to take into account those that could afford health care then. What about all the peasants who won’t show up in the figures because they simply couldn’t have afforded it. You’ve got to take the whole population into account not just look at the amount of lives saved.
Cole
Whose numbers you shamelessly lie about to promote your far right agenda.
LB
The death rate caused by errors in US hospitals is less than the rate of deaths in the NHS.
Remember those refused health care, aren’t killed by doctors and nurses.
That’s why the US is a bad example bar one thing. It shows that the NHS kills more than the US.
For a properly designed heath system., you need universal coverage – hence the Swiss system is a good choice.
Similarly its a good system because insurer, supplier and regulator are separated.
So why should a system that kills at a higher rate than the US be a good system?
LB
Far from it.
All the numbers come from reliable sources. BMJ and peer review.
I’ve posted lots of links for you to check.
From a search back, I notice a complete lack of references from you.
That means that for some reason you think that its acceptable to kill 40,000 without consequences.
My guess is that you don’t want people to know about the slaughter, because of the consequences of that knowledge.
1. People would demand compensation and that would cost lots of people in the NHS their jobs. 20 bn a year, plus compensation for the deaths in the past. That would come at the cost of salaries in the NHS. There is no more money, there is just debt. That’s the consequences.
2. With people questioning why an organisation covered up, then the organisation itself is going to go.
For example, the NoW went for something far less serious than killing 40K a year. What would happen if the knowledge became widespread?
3. I presume you’re on the payroll. I suspect you feel scared about the consequences.
Cole
I’m not on anyone’s payroll, thank you. Cut out the cheap jibes.
You are completely and utterly discredited. For months you’ve been quoting a BMJ peer reviewed report which says that 40,000 people die unnecessarily each year in the NHS. Turns out this is complete rubbish and nonsense. The report actually says under 12,000 die.
Frankly, I’m fed up with hate-filled right wingers making up stuff because they loathe the NHS. But it’s no surprise.
Does LB stand for ‘Lying B******’?