The disappearance of the NHS

This government has no mandate to do what it is doing to the NHS and it will be for a future administration to restore public ownership without compensation. But first the public must send these Tory scoundrels packing and the chance to do just that is coming next year. That is why they are panicking and trying to rush through all this dodgy legislation .

agreed, plain wrong and tragic. The NHS was the Jewel in the Crown of the UK and a fantastic example for the whole world- miles ahead in so many ways.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/richard-blogger/biggest-denationalisation-of-health-services-ever-announced-by-health-ministe

This is a very long article from open democracy about Frances Maude suggesting that mutualising the hospitals will be better than privatising them. There are some hospitals ready for it now.
It means going back to the hotchpotch that existed before the NHS came into being.

It's just plain wrong.

Just read that a member of the NHA is to stand against Harriet Harman, because the Labour Party are not being strong enough on their condemnation of the changes to the NHS.

Whitewave, the tipping point is 38%, or actually 38 degrees, which is why 38 degrees is called what it is. It depends what tipping point you want; the one where the NHS goes completely private, or the one where we all decide we've had enough of the privatisation, and rebel properly, having a revolution.

There was a report that 30% of NHS contracts have gone to the private section. How long before the tipping point is reached?

Are you supporting privatization crun or making the point that the NHS is struggling?

I keep hearing of people who have paid for their own knee replacments (about £7000) or hip replacements (£10,000) so I assume this is becoming commonplace?! Incredible both because people are that desperate and because they have the money, coming, I suppose again from house price inflation. Now that's an interesting angle on the property boom for some reporter to pick up!

I know of one acquaintance who is in terrible daily pain (lives in London) who has been told her hip is 'not yet bad enough' for a replacement to be considered. She wants to sell her house to finance it which is causing terrible arguments with her son who sees the house as his inheritance! Ho, hum, what a place we have got to.

crun So what point are you making?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30426141

The use of volunteers and charities to carry out basic state functions has been refined and exploited by all governments as a convenient way of saving money and are now an essential part of our way of life. The open-hearted generosity and self-help nature of the British people are their finest attributes but have sadly been abused by all governments. Without such unpaid help and charity work in core services these days, many more people would suffer.

There is a role for volunteers but my feeling is that it should be to provide additional non-essential support, not to replace employees in carrying out core tasks.

It appears that the the volunteer is to be part of a team carrying out very responsible and possibly quite demanding unpaid work. It seems to me that volunteers are now performing duties that were formerly carried out by fully trained paid staff, while those with less "hands on" managerial/administrative roles are possibly receiving a reasonably good salary.

I don't think it's acceptable for private, profit making organisations to take on unpaid interns to perform duties that a paid employee would normally be expected to do (it's illegal but it isn't really policed), and I don't think it's acceptable for public services to be shored up in this way by charities or not-for-profit organisations either.

Should this be done by volunteers?

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/jobs/advert/J3H7SZ5VMWKYMBL251P/?ref=to

Yes, Annie and Elo. I did mention the Green Party to roseq yesterday, but as Elo said, they do not get the coverage they deserve.
The last I read they were thinking of going to court to ensure they get more coverage.

anniezzz09 I agree with your comments about the Greens. Unfortunately, they get so little media coverage - which doesn't help in encouraging people to see them as a viable choice.

Another MP in the news yesterday for an alleged sexual offence.

I will vote for whoever starts the Integrity Party.

rosequartz I think the Green Party does meet some of the criteria you were searching for. Their policies are interesting and they are the last Socialists left in the land I think. It's a shame that they won't get as many votes as they deserve.

jingle Politicians are human beings too and therefore, according to your analysis, are only doing what comes naturally to humans.

But why do we always accept the premise that "human nature" is greedy and selfish? I think there are many examples of people - sometimes spontaneously and sometimes with forethought - risking their lives, their health, their comfort, etc. to help complete strangers. Maybe the majority of people are mostly only concerned with their own and their families' wellbeing, but there are exceptions. That suggests to me that human behaviour differs from person to person and isn't set in stone.

Wish they would do what they are paid to do, in that case.

" those people who vote entirely on the basis of whether the government has done a "good job" for them and their family and to hell with anyone or anything else can hardly blame politicians for being equally self-serving."

Re the people - human nature.

Re the politicians - they are paid to represent all sections of society.

Good post, Eloethan, although getting more involved is difficult for the majority of the population who have to work and deal with family issues. I know some manage to do so.

rosequartz Unfortunately it does appear that there are a lot of politicians who are not as public spirited as we would hope and whose main focus seems to be building their own careers. However, I'm sure there are also MPs who are genuinely committed to doing the best they can for their constituents and the country as a whole.

I agree people are increasingly disillusioned with politicians, but to some extent I feel we, the electorate, should take more interest in what is happening and get more involved. And those people who vote entirely on the basis of whether the government has done a "good job" for them and their family and to hell with anyone or anything else can hardly blame politicians for being equally self-serving.

NHA party? Green party?

I read in yesterday's i that Kwasi Kwarteng, an influential Tory, has been taped saying that the NHS funds might have to be cut to reduce the deficit. Shame he did not tell Osborne what he was going to say before the Autumn statement.

Perhaps we should pay MPs more, cut right down on their expenses and ban them from taking other jobs.

I was brought up by one Labour Trade Unionist parent and one staunch Conservative parent in a household where politics was freely discussed. I don't think my politics can be a product of my upbringing! Generally speaking, I don't discuss politics with my friends and have no idea how most of them vote.

If someone could point me in the direction of a party of would-be MPs with common-sense who are true Socialists and work for the good of the people, the country as a whole and in a manner which produces enough wealth to keep those unable to work in a dignified manner and maintain the essential services of this country - and who do not look to feather their own nests more than is necessary to maintain a decent standard of living - then I just might consider voting for them. But I cannot think of one who does not espouse the 'do as I say and not as I do' doctrine of politics.

I'm not sneering about Tory MP Stephen Dorrel taking a job with KPMG who is bidding for a major NHS contract, I am just full of contempt for him. Dorrel, who has been involved in the privatisation of the NHS, says he will stay on as an MP. Has Cameron got the decency to say no? We'll see.

Ana I agree that my using the word partisan was incorrect, but I was responding to POGS's comment. I actually meant partial.

durhamjen and I have been quite open about our socialist leanings but I don't think either of us can be described as "partisan" as we have both expressed indecision as which party to vote for. Many people on the left have lost confidence in Labour - at least in its "reincarnation" as "New Labour" - but some nevertheless still believe that a political agenda which focuses on the "ordinary people" of this country is by far preferable to the vindictive and cruel policies of the Conservative party which has always represented the interests of wealthy people and big business.

I don't see how those that consistently support Conservative party policy and jump to its defence on practically every issue, can then label those that criticise the government as "partisan".

"Sneers" aren't exclusive to those criticising the government. Some posters have consistently lambasted Labour (and the Green Party), with attacks on Ken Livingston, Ed Miliband, John McDonnell, Labour councils, "left wing socialist elites", "Labour millionaires", unions, "champagne socialists", etc. etc.