New Labour lose in Glasgow East. Well I am going to say I told you so. New labour will not be re-elected. Its not just Gordon - who has to go if Labour are to have any chance at all - but 'New' has to go as well. Will this sink in? I don't think so. So effective has the Blair/Brown coup been that the upper reaches of the party is stuffed with New Labourites who wouldn't know a centre-left policy if they fell over it. In order to get back to Labour you would have to sack the entire government which just isn't going to happen.
So what will happen? I expect that Brown will go sometime in the next six months - if only because the desire for self preservation amongst New Labour MPs will be outweigh any other considerations. Who will take over is hard to call at the moment. Milliband is the media's pin up boy. I suspect Alan Johnson would be a good bet. Simply because he is a 'regular bloke' who would contrast well with toff Cameron.
Where does this leave the unions? Still looking for a party I'm afraid. There is going to be no swing to the left in the Labour party in the near future. The unions need to make a decision whether to ditch the party and start again or cling on in the hope that things will improve. But as far as New Labour is concerned - the party's over.
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Friday, 25 July 2008
Its the environment stupid!
David Cameron is wrong - we don't live in a broken society. We have poverty and pockets of great deprivation but the vast majority of people and families live in neighborhoods which are safe, and not plagued by anti-social behaviour.
One thing that Cameron is right about and that is that people should take responsibility for their own lives - but no one disputes that! The thing is that Tories talk about this as if it was a concept that they have invented and have a copyright on. One of the things the left have to do is slay this myth.
Buts lets talk about the people who Cameron thinks are part of this broken society. He is obviously not referring to his own family and Notting Hill chums. So who does he mean? Er.... well the poor. Except that Tories can't bring themselves to admit that these problems are caused by poverty - because that would be admitting that their rotten economic system not only fails a substantial potion of the population but actually causes the poverty that these people suffer from.
Lets continue by slaying the two great Tory (right wing) myths:
1. The rich are rich because they are talented and they deserve the money they have. Not true. The overwhelming majority of rich people inherit their wealth - a fact which was well known in the 1960's but now has been conveniently forgotten. Not only are the wealthy rich because mummy and daddy were, but the Middle Classes are well off for the same reason. I've used capitals because I'm talking about the real Middle Class here - not you and me. We are the middle class. They commonly earn £100,000 or more. Call them Upper Middle Class if you like. These are the largely Oxbridge educated crew who dominate the media, arts and professions. Some of them are genuinely upwardly mobile but the is only because of the expansion of higher education in the 1960's - a door which has now been firmly shut by New Labour.
2. The poor are poor because they are feckless scroungers: Not true. But it plays very well with the Daily Mail readers and tiny minded Tories who can only feel good by thinking they are better than somebody else. The poor are poor largely because their parents were poor. Notice a pattern here? Poor people live in poor areas. They are deprived compared to their rich compatriots. They are going nowhere. Why? Because its almost impossible to break out of that kind of situation. Its the environment that they live in that determines their future. Of course a few do escape. The lucky ones and the very clever ones. But the rest are stuck in their ghetto. Those that do escape are held up by the right as shining examples - if they can do it anyone can. No, once again, not true.
Socialists have always recognised this. Socialists have tried to improve the environment to help the poor but this has largely failed and there are two main reasons: Firstly most of the attempts have been imposed top down by the state - to help people you have to empower them and that's something that governments (of every hue) hate doing. They like to talk about it but make damn sure it never happens. Secondly to end poverty you have to create some wealth. Governments have really had no answer to this because they rely on capitalism and capitalists to do this. So, companies are bribed to move in, business units are set up and it doesn't work. If people are genuinely going to be empowered they have to create the wealth themselves. Absolutely no point in giving millions to companies that are going to pocket the money and move on as soon as possible. The money needs to go direct to the people. But what kind of capitalist government is ever going to do that?
The only way we can end the curse of poverty in the world is to move away from capitalism to a co-operative economic system which empowers individuals and stresses need not greed. And no this doesn't mean living in communes or 5 year plans. It means doing the kind of things that they did in Argentina recently when, during an economic crisis, the bosses bailed out, leaving their factories behind them. The workers refused to accept unemployment, took over the factories and businesses and ran them themselves. Now that's the way to end poverty - cut out the capitalists.
One thing that Cameron is right about and that is that people should take responsibility for their own lives - but no one disputes that! The thing is that Tories talk about this as if it was a concept that they have invented and have a copyright on. One of the things the left have to do is slay this myth.
Buts lets talk about the people who Cameron thinks are part of this broken society. He is obviously not referring to his own family and Notting Hill chums. So who does he mean? Er.... well the poor. Except that Tories can't bring themselves to admit that these problems are caused by poverty - because that would be admitting that their rotten economic system not only fails a substantial potion of the population but actually causes the poverty that these people suffer from.
Lets continue by slaying the two great Tory (right wing) myths:
1. The rich are rich because they are talented and they deserve the money they have. Not true. The overwhelming majority of rich people inherit their wealth - a fact which was well known in the 1960's but now has been conveniently forgotten. Not only are the wealthy rich because mummy and daddy were, but the Middle Classes are well off for the same reason. I've used capitals because I'm talking about the real Middle Class here - not you and me. We are the middle class. They commonly earn £100,000 or more. Call them Upper Middle Class if you like. These are the largely Oxbridge educated crew who dominate the media, arts and professions. Some of them are genuinely upwardly mobile but the is only because of the expansion of higher education in the 1960's - a door which has now been firmly shut by New Labour.
2. The poor are poor because they are feckless scroungers: Not true. But it plays very well with the Daily Mail readers and tiny minded Tories who can only feel good by thinking they are better than somebody else. The poor are poor largely because their parents were poor. Notice a pattern here? Poor people live in poor areas. They are deprived compared to their rich compatriots. They are going nowhere. Why? Because its almost impossible to break out of that kind of situation. Its the environment that they live in that determines their future. Of course a few do escape. The lucky ones and the very clever ones. But the rest are stuck in their ghetto. Those that do escape are held up by the right as shining examples - if they can do it anyone can. No, once again, not true.
Socialists have always recognised this. Socialists have tried to improve the environment to help the poor but this has largely failed and there are two main reasons: Firstly most of the attempts have been imposed top down by the state - to help people you have to empower them and that's something that governments (of every hue) hate doing. They like to talk about it but make damn sure it never happens. Secondly to end poverty you have to create some wealth. Governments have really had no answer to this because they rely on capitalism and capitalists to do this. So, companies are bribed to move in, business units are set up and it doesn't work. If people are genuinely going to be empowered they have to create the wealth themselves. Absolutely no point in giving millions to companies that are going to pocket the money and move on as soon as possible. The money needs to go direct to the people. But what kind of capitalist government is ever going to do that?
The only way we can end the curse of poverty in the world is to move away from capitalism to a co-operative economic system which empowers individuals and stresses need not greed. And no this doesn't mean living in communes or 5 year plans. It means doing the kind of things that they did in Argentina recently when, during an economic crisis, the bosses bailed out, leaving their factories behind them. The workers refused to accept unemployment, took over the factories and businesses and ran them themselves. Now that's the way to end poverty - cut out the capitalists.
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Nuclear Power? ...no thanks ...yet again!
In a week that we heard of accidents at French nuclear plants its time to make it clear that we don't want more nuclear power. How did we get here? Ever since climate change, and the need to reduce our carbon outputs became accepted, the nuclear industry has cynically jumped on the bandwagon and has been pushing nuclear as a 'green' or even clean option. It hasn't helped that people like James Lovelock have endorsed the use of nuclear power.
But there is nothing green or clean about nuclear power, and in the UK there has been a culture of deception. In 1957 there was a serious accident at Windscale which was hushed up, we were told that nuclear power would be too cheap to meter - yet it has only been viable because of subsidies, and still nobody knows what to do with the high-level radioactive waste. Then there is the cost of nuclear waste disposal which has been estimated recently at £73 billion. Sir Walter Marshall, when he was head of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board in the 1980s, admitted that the public had been kept in the dark about accidents and the real costs of nuclear power. Should we expect things to have changed?
Of course we shouldn't expect New Labour to do anything other than pander to the wishes of big business. New Labour have dragged their feet over renewables and tried to sabotage the renewables directive on behalf of their chums in the energy companies. The fact is that they don't want sensible green solutions that would enable us to generate our own energy, they want high tech, big business solutions like nuclear because that would enable their chums to make an awful lot of money for a very long time - at the expense of us and the environment.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Free market failures
This blog has followed free market failures which have caused misery to millions. The free market failure known as the 'credit crunch' has been of particular interest because of its effect on he UK. Now we hear that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the two giant corporations providing 50% of mortgages in the US, are in deep trouble. Of course in a free market these corporations should be allowed to go bust.
But we know that won't happen because that would be a disaster, a disaster not because of the misery it would cause to millions - since when has that ever been a concern of the 'market' - but because it would truly expose the dark underbelly of capitalism and the dodgy banking system which underpins it - and it would turn millions in the west against the free market system. That is the real reason why it cannot be allowed to happen.
But we know that won't happen because that would be a disaster, a disaster not because of the misery it would cause to millions - since when has that ever been a concern of the 'market' - but because it would truly expose the dark underbelly of capitalism and the dodgy banking system which underpins it - and it would turn millions in the west against the free market system. That is the real reason why it cannot be allowed to happen.
En vacances
Juste retour d'un grand vacances en France. Nous sommes allés à l'île de Ré et la Vallée de la Loire pendant dix jours. Sur l'île de Ré, qui est reliée à La Rochelle par un pont de 3 km, nous sommes restés à La Flotte. L'île a une histoire intéressante avoir été battu par les Anglais et les Français, et qui ont été bien connue pour son vin et le sel. Il est un superbe XVIIe siècle, ville fortifiée à St Martin de Re et quelques belles plages. Dans le Val de Loire nous sommes restés à Montsoreau, un village sur la Loire, qui se situe entre Samur et Chinon. Nous avons rendu visite à Chinon, l'Abbaye de Fontevraud, le château Montgeoffroy et le village troglodytique de Rochemenier. Juste à côté de Montsoreau est le charmant village de Candes-Saint-Martin qui a une belle église en son centre (voir photo). Nous avons terminé la holday par passer la nuit dans la ville de St Malo et la visite de notre bar favori à l'Hôtel de L 'Univers (voir photo).
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
And God created.......homosexuals
If you believe in God, and that God is our creator, you must also accept that God created homosexuals. New research has shown that homosexuals are born homosexual. Its not something they grow into, or some kind of lifestyle choice. They are made that way. So that must be what God, the great designer, intended, mustn't it?
As an atheist and a biologist I've never had any doubts that people are born gay and that being gay is natural, not some sort of abberation. Because I'm not encumbered with the baggage of the abrahamic religions, its not difficult for me to see that homosexuality is just part of natural diversity, a thing that you might expect to happen as part of evolutionary development.
Something tells me however, that no amount of research will ever convince many religious people of this fact. That is not because they are christians, jews or musllims but because they are bigots.
As an atheist and a biologist I've never had any doubts that people are born gay and that being gay is natural, not some sort of abberation. Because I'm not encumbered with the baggage of the abrahamic religions, its not difficult for me to see that homosexuality is just part of natural diversity, a thing that you might expect to happen as part of evolutionary development.
Something tells me however, that no amount of research will ever convince many religious people of this fact. That is not because they are christians, jews or musllims but because they are bigots.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Hats off to the Irish!
So - the only EU member state out of 27 allowed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (i.e. the EU constitution) rejected it convincingly, thus scuppering the Treaty. How many other countries would have done so if they'd had the chance to vote?
Now we can expect Europe's leaders to show their usual contempt for the people of Europe by fixing it so that the treaty is adopted anyway.
Now we can expect Europe's leaders to show their usual contempt for the people of Europe by fixing it so that the treaty is adopted anyway.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
The silence of the lambs
Compass, the group chaired by Neal Lawson claims to provide 'direction for the democratic left'. Neal recently wrote an article which was published in the Guardian. Here's an extract:
"Since 1979 Britain has lived in a Neverland of market fundamentalism that New Labour has mostly failed to challenge and too often sought to embed. From being the problem that social democracy existed to correct, markets were regarded as the cure-all."
Now I wouldn't disagree with this though I might have put it differently. But the issue that it raises is an important one. What have Neal and his fellow Compass Labour MPs been doing for the past 11 years? Why is it that only now when the New Labour project is unraveling that we hear from them?
The reality is that Neal and co. have have been sitting on their hands while Blair and Brown have been imposing reactionary free-market policies such as the privatisation of education and the NHS on the country. Its a bit late to start bleating about it now isn't it Neal! How can anyone who opposes New Labour and their policies take Compass seriously?
As a footnote - Compass are holding a conference today in London. I note that the attendees are the usual suspects - the London set of 'leftwing' luvvies - do they ever leave the capital and try to engage with the rest of us? - and features such well known lefties as Ed Milliband, Harriet Harman and James Purnell. So thats all right then. Our problems will be sorted.........
"Since 1979 Britain has lived in a Neverland of market fundamentalism that New Labour has mostly failed to challenge and too often sought to embed. From being the problem that social democracy existed to correct, markets were regarded as the cure-all."
Now I wouldn't disagree with this though I might have put it differently. But the issue that it raises is an important one. What have Neal and his fellow Compass Labour MPs been doing for the past 11 years? Why is it that only now when the New Labour project is unraveling that we hear from them?
The reality is that Neal and co. have have been sitting on their hands while Blair and Brown have been imposing reactionary free-market policies such as the privatisation of education and the NHS on the country. Its a bit late to start bleating about it now isn't it Neal! How can anyone who opposes New Labour and their policies take Compass seriously?
As a footnote - Compass are holding a conference today in London. I note that the attendees are the usual suspects - the London set of 'leftwing' luvvies - do they ever leave the capital and try to engage with the rest of us? - and features such well known lefties as Ed Milliband, Harriet Harman and James Purnell. So thats all right then. Our problems will be sorted.........
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Capitalism creates poverty - its official!
Capitalism is an economic system, based on greed, which ignores the needs of people. It creates wealth for a tiny minority and poverty for the vast majority. It can never, and will never, eliminate poverty, and it is pointless New Labour pretending that it can. In fact, the New Labour government, which has slavishly followed an socially irresponsible, rapacious free- market capitalist model, has increased the gap between rich and poor and has increased poverty, and reduced equality and social mobility.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that data released yesterday by the Department of Work and Pensions showed that child poverty and pensioner poverty is increasing - not diminishing. So another New Labour flagship policy bites the dust! Ultimately, we have to judge people by what they do - not what they say. New Labour has claimed to reduced poverty whilst pursuing free-market policies which increase poverty.
But it also has to be asked - why all the fuss about child poverty? Does that mean it is ok for adults to be poor? - I don't think so. Children live in poverty because their parents are poor. Take the adults out of poverty and you take the children out too! The parents of children in poverty are not unemployed. They work for a living. They are poor because they don't get paid enough for the work that they do - it is as simple as that. The people that employ them cream off the wealth for themselves. That is exploitation - the bedrock of free-market capitalism.
Instead of using taxpayers hard earned cash to subsidise the the wealthy and shareholders by paying the poor tax credits the government should be increasing the minimum wage, which at the moment is well below the poverty level, to at least 60% of the median UK wage. We also need a massive increase in pensions to raise the elderly out of poverty - £5 billion of pension credit was left unclaimed last year.
Remember - every time you eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel your enjoyment is being subsidised by the poverty of the people who work there............ the Sex Pistols said it years ago in Holidays in the Sun - "Cheap holidays in other people's misery".
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that data released yesterday by the Department of Work and Pensions showed that child poverty and pensioner poverty is increasing - not diminishing. So another New Labour flagship policy bites the dust! Ultimately, we have to judge people by what they do - not what they say. New Labour has claimed to reduced poverty whilst pursuing free-market policies which increase poverty.
But it also has to be asked - why all the fuss about child poverty? Does that mean it is ok for adults to be poor? - I don't think so. Children live in poverty because their parents are poor. Take the adults out of poverty and you take the children out too! The parents of children in poverty are not unemployed. They work for a living. They are poor because they don't get paid enough for the work that they do - it is as simple as that. The people that employ them cream off the wealth for themselves. That is exploitation - the bedrock of free-market capitalism.
Instead of using taxpayers hard earned cash to subsidise the the wealthy and shareholders by paying the poor tax credits the government should be increasing the minimum wage, which at the moment is well below the poverty level, to at least 60% of the median UK wage. We also need a massive increase in pensions to raise the elderly out of poverty - £5 billion of pension credit was left unclaimed last year.
Remember - every time you eat in a restaurant or stay in a hotel your enjoyment is being subsidised by the poverty of the people who work there............ the Sex Pistols said it years ago in Holidays in the Sun - "Cheap holidays in other people's misery".
Monday, 9 June 2008
Suffer the children
Today, a report to the United Nations on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) condemns the UK for treating children badly. This may come as a surprise to some but not to me. Since the age of about eleven I've been acutely aware of how badly this country treats young people. Since I've become an adult, and traveled more widely, I've noticed how other societies show more respect and love for their children. This is obvious to anybody who has spent time in France, for example.
We like to think we value children, and most modern parents certainly spend vast amounts (relative to their income) on them. But that is not the same as loving children and treating them with respect. The key issues identified in the report were: -
Here, education is dominated by the malign, class-based influence, of the independent schools and right-wing pundits - the so-called experts. These people want us to return to the 19th century, where the children of gentlemen are sent to public schools and the rest are factory (or should I say free-market) fodder. That is their ambition for our children. It will be their children who are attending the public schools. Its just not possible to see how education in the country can ever be what our children deserve while it remains a political football dominated by reactionary views.
The overwhelming majority of kids and teenagers in this country are decent people. They are not delinquents. Those who are delinquents are overwhelmingly kids who have suffered deprivation. Young people care about the society they live in. Its about time we started to care about them.
We like to think we value children, and most modern parents certainly spend vast amounts (relative to their income) on them. But that is not the same as loving children and treating them with respect. The key issues identified in the report were: -
· A punitive juvenile justice system;
· Public attitudes that demonise teenagers;
· Lack of protection against physical punishment in the home;
· One of the highest levels of child poverty in Europe.
This is a very serious indictment of the society we live in. So what can be done about it? Well, we can start with our appalling education system, and I say this as someone who has worked as a teacher in secondary education. Its appalling because it is based on an elitist 19th century academic model which favours the rich and the middle class. All children suffer from this, including those who are educated privately, but the real losers are the working class and the poor. It is a system obsessed with testing and failing school students and one which pays no regard to vocational achievement. Look at countries like France and Germany - they have got it right - no wonder they are more successful economically and produce better adjusted individuals. They have kindergartens where young children learn to co-operate and socialise before they start to learn about other things. Then they have technical education where students can learn practical skills which are really valued.Here, education is dominated by the malign, class-based influence, of the independent schools and right-wing pundits - the so-called experts. These people want us to return to the 19th century, where the children of gentlemen are sent to public schools and the rest are factory (or should I say free-market) fodder. That is their ambition for our children. It will be their children who are attending the public schools. Its just not possible to see how education in the country can ever be what our children deserve while it remains a political football dominated by reactionary views.
The overwhelming majority of kids and teenagers in this country are decent people. They are not delinquents. Those who are delinquents are overwhelmingly kids who have suffered deprivation. Young people care about the society they live in. Its about time we started to care about them.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Help! How about some forward thinking leadership!
Another Guardian article which I just had to respond to:
Thanks Gordon. You have ably illustrated why you are so out of touch with reality. You obviously can't see the wood for the trees. NEW LABOUR HAVE WASTED 11 YEARS in which they could have invested in renewables, energy efficiency and a low carbon (how about hydrogen?) economy.
That would have left us in a much stronger position than we are now.
Your response to the oil 'crisis' - is to talk about how the price of oil is too high! WISE UP! - the world is changing and its your responsibility to make sure that we can cope, not only with the post-oil economy but climate change to boot. So get your finger out and start doing something about it before its too late!.... Oh and while you're at it - forget about nuclear power that is not the solution.
Thanks Gordon. You have ably illustrated why you are so out of touch with reality. You obviously can't see the wood for the trees. NEW LABOUR HAVE WASTED 11 YEARS in which they could have invested in renewables, energy efficiency and a low carbon (how about hydrogen?) economy.
That would have left us in a much stronger position than we are now.
Your response to the oil 'crisis' - is to talk about how the price of oil is too high! WISE UP! - the world is changing and its your responsibility to make sure that we can cope, not only with the post-oil economy but climate change to boot. So get your finger out and start doing something about it before its too late!.... Oh and while you're at it - forget about nuclear power that is not the solution.
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
Credit crunch? Not for the fat cats
I was interested to read a Guardian report yesterday on City 'workers'. Apparently £13.2bn in bonuses have been handed out so far this year! No credit crunch for them then. How long can we continue to put up with this abuse? These people are rewarded out of all proportion to any useful role they may play in society. That money could be put to a good use rebuilding schools, or dealing with the growing problems created by the shortage of housing in the UK.
Even the director general of the CBI made critical comments about the bonus culture. What useful purpose do these people serve? - none at all. But in an economic system driven by greed this kind of madness is apparently acceptable. What is most depressing about this situation is that we no there is no chance of a Labour government doing anything about it.
Even the director general of the CBI made critical comments about the bonus culture. What useful purpose do these people serve? - none at all. But in an economic system driven by greed this kind of madness is apparently acceptable. What is most depressing about this situation is that we no there is no chance of a Labour government doing anything about it.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Cameron the charlatan
David Cameron is a 'progressive', or so he claims to be. I'd like to believe him. If what he says is true that would bode well for a possible future for the UK under a Tory government. But I don't believe him. Why? - because when Black Wednesday happened who was standing next to Norman Lamont? - and who wrote the 2005 Tory Election manifesto ? - possibly the most right-wing in the party's history. You've guessed it - David Cameron.
Some people would say that a leopard doesn't change its spots and I'm justifiably skeptical that David Cameron, Eton Schoolboy, and Bullingham Club member has managed to travel a millimetre to the left. Why Should anyone else believe him?
Then look at who Cameron has surrounded himself with - William Hague!, Ian Duncan Smith (IDS) ! - even the Vulcan (Redwood) is still in favour! A real progressive bunch if I've ever seen one!
And while I'm on the subject IDS has been much praised for his efforts in looking at poverty. But what did his study conclude? That one parent families were a bad thing and responsible for social breakdown. In other words, the much vaunted 'research' just happened to churn out a result which confirmed every Tory prejudice against the poor!
Apart from being an insult to all those single parents who struggle to bring up children and who do a marvellous job - what IDS and his chums failed to understand is that its poverty that causes social breakdown NOT single parents - an error you would hardly expect even an Eton schoolboy to make.
No, Cameron is not a progressive - I'd like him to prove me wrong. But there is about as much chance of that happening as there is of New Labour winning the next election.
Some people would say that a leopard doesn't change its spots and I'm justifiably skeptical that David Cameron, Eton Schoolboy, and Bullingham Club member has managed to travel a millimetre to the left. Why Should anyone else believe him?
Then look at who Cameron has surrounded himself with - William Hague!, Ian Duncan Smith (IDS) ! - even the Vulcan (Redwood) is still in favour! A real progressive bunch if I've ever seen one!
And while I'm on the subject IDS has been much praised for his efforts in looking at poverty. But what did his study conclude? That one parent families were a bad thing and responsible for social breakdown. In other words, the much vaunted 'research' just happened to churn out a result which confirmed every Tory prejudice against the poor!
Apart from being an insult to all those single parents who struggle to bring up children and who do a marvellous job - what IDS and his chums failed to understand is that its poverty that causes social breakdown NOT single parents - an error you would hardly expect even an Eton schoolboy to make.
No, Cameron is not a progressive - I'd like him to prove me wrong. But there is about as much chance of that happening as there is of New Labour winning the next election.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
You just don't get it do you....
I'm writing this whilst listening to The Week in Westminster on Radio 4. Two Labour MPs discussing Labour's problems, and Gordon Brown's performance, show just out of touch they are with reality. They think that the voters are angry about the 10p tax rate debacle - and they are - but this is just a symptom of their complete disillusionment with New Labour. Call it New Labour's poll tax moment if you like. It means that Gordon cannot win the next election. He has to go if Labour are to have a chance. Not only does he have to go but New Labour has to go with him.......and the new leader of the Labour Party will have to return to Labour values.
This is confirmed by the fact that Alastair Darling's 10p tax fix has had no impact. Voters see it for what it is - a cynical temporary measure. If he had taken the £2.7 billion in a windfall tax on the energy companies, or raising taxes on the rich - now that would have made a difference.........that would have been Labour.
This is confirmed by the fact that Alastair Darling's 10p tax fix has had no impact. Voters see it for what it is - a cynical temporary measure. If he had taken the £2.7 billion in a windfall tax on the energy companies, or raising taxes on the rich - now that would have made a difference.........that would have been Labour.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Privatising the NHS
Have you heard of polyclinics? These are the future of primary healthcare in the UK according to Lord Darzi who has been 'asked' by the government to look at GP provision. Polyclinics are, allegedly,bigger and better than GP practices. They will be able to offer more 'services' to patients, or should that be customers? You see the plan is that these polyclinics will be run by Virgin Health or Tescos. Perhaps you will be able to buy some groceries whist you see the nurse, or book a flight after your consultation.
Sounds convenient? Not to me. Not only does this mean a further centralisation of NHS services, making them more remote from the sick and elderly, but it means the private sector getting a dirty great big foot in the door. Call me old fashioned but when I go to see the doctor, I want to see the doctor, not simpering staff in Virgin uniforms trying to sell me health insurance and offering discounts on rail fares.
But that is not the most important point. In the USA, where healthcare is privatised, medical treatment is the biggest single cause of bankruptcy. Ever seen Sicko, the film by Michael Moore? If not you should. Yes, like his other documentaries its flawed, but the central message is entirely accurate - people die because they can't afford healthcare in one of the world's richest countries, and that's obscene, and unnecessary. And they die because healthcare is privatised.
There will no doubt be some who don't believe that could happen here. But I'm not one of them. Giant corporations like United Health want to get their hands on our NHS. If they do, costs will rise and money we spend on healthcare will go to provide profits for shareholders and the rich instead of providing medical treatment for the likes of you and me.
The government knows that private sector companies can't compete with a well run public sector that doesn't have to make a profit. That is why they are they have dreamed up 'patient choice' and are giving the likes of Virgin and Tesco contracts when it comes to running polyclinics - because they are ideologically committed to privatisation. It not too late to stop this from happening. Support you local GP and lobby your Primary Care Trust (PCT). If New Labour succeed in their privatisation plans we should all be very worried about the future. Just don't get sick.
Sounds convenient? Not to me. Not only does this mean a further centralisation of NHS services, making them more remote from the sick and elderly, but it means the private sector getting a dirty great big foot in the door. Call me old fashioned but when I go to see the doctor, I want to see the doctor, not simpering staff in Virgin uniforms trying to sell me health insurance and offering discounts on rail fares.
But that is not the most important point. In the USA, where healthcare is privatised, medical treatment is the biggest single cause of bankruptcy. Ever seen Sicko, the film by Michael Moore? If not you should. Yes, like his other documentaries its flawed, but the central message is entirely accurate - people die because they can't afford healthcare in one of the world's richest countries, and that's obscene, and unnecessary. And they die because healthcare is privatised.
There will no doubt be some who don't believe that could happen here. But I'm not one of them. Giant corporations like United Health want to get their hands on our NHS. If they do, costs will rise and money we spend on healthcare will go to provide profits for shareholders and the rich instead of providing medical treatment for the likes of you and me.
The government knows that private sector companies can't compete with a well run public sector that doesn't have to make a profit. That is why they are they have dreamed up 'patient choice' and are giving the likes of Virgin and Tesco contracts when it comes to running polyclinics - because they are ideologically committed to privatisation. It not too late to stop this from happening. Support you local GP and lobby your Primary Care Trust (PCT). If New Labour succeed in their privatisation plans we should all be very worried about the future. Just don't get sick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)