"I've never seen anything like it!"

Durhamjen

Can't argue with that one, yes it would hypocritical.

However I don't know the precise reason why he took his child to A&E. It could have been well justified so I won't guess I may end up with egg on my face.

I don't think it's fair to expect any parent to be expected to wait to see their GP if they're worried about a sick child whose illness may or may not be serious. I'm not talking about a splinter here.

I for one don't know why Jeremy Hunt took his child to A&E. Do you, durhamjen?

The thing is, once something has been given it is very difficult to take it away again, eg the last Labour Government gave GPs a hefty pay rise and told them also that they need not work weekends. Should this Coalition Government be brave enough to say that working a 5 day week is unjustified and that they need to go back to working weekends? Cue for unrest from GPs.

Perhaps the child needed to be taken to A&E and perhaps the out-of-hours service advised that because they could not deal with the problem. We don't know, do we? If Labour had not allowed GPs the weekends off then the child may still have needed to go to A&E if the GP could not have dealt with the problem.
We have had to contact the out-of-hours service who advised calling an ambulance and the paramedics then advised A&E (not for a child). Perhaps that is what happened to Jeremy Hunt and his family.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/26/jeremy-hunt-jousts-with-labour-shadow-over-childrens-ae-visit

I wonder if Andy Burnham would wait over a whole weekend before taking his sick child to the GP? I doubt he would neglect a child although:

If you are not sure who Andy Burnham is, this is the same Andy Burnham (Labour) who was in charge of the Health Service during Stafford Hospital's outrageous neglect of patients.

just reading some of the comments below my Guardian link - are these typical of Guardian readers?

No wonder no-one can take that rag seriously any more!

I agree POGS that those who disagree with private education should not buy it for their own children (unless there are very special family reasons for doing so), similarly grammar schools. Of course, they should also not be employing people on zero hours contracts or engaging in any dodgy expenses shenanigans - but I think that should apply to any MP of whatever political persuasion.

As to healthcare, I don't think those who disagree with private healthcare should use it for themselves or their families. BUT I recall one Gransnetter (can't remember who it was) who felt very upset because she had booked a private consultation relating to an undiagnosed health problem. She had been told she would have to wait quite some time for an NHS appointment and she was terribly worried. She felt guilty because she felt that, as a critic of private health care, she was being hypocritical. I disagree with private healthcare too but I wouldn't criticise someone for making that decision in that particular situation - I may well do the same myself.

We haven't got gender equality and, with so many all male lists, it looks like we're never going to get it until some sort of measures are taken to give women an equal chance.

The thing about private education, private healthcare etc, is that, if people didn't subscribe to it and use it, the education and health services in this country would collapse totally with the added burden of all those pupils and patients.

People (MPs especially) should not use it and then criticise other people for doing the same thing and try to pass legislation to prevent it flourishing.

rosequartz as only 7% of pupils are privately educated I can't see them causing the collapse of the education system if all their parents decided to move them to state schools. As it is children tend to move in and out of both systems, in my experience. Of course, all those parents who opt for independent schools have paid their tax just the same as those receiving free education but do not take this. I have always felt, for this reason, that charity status balanced this out.

Gracesgran If all the children who live locally and attend the private school were to try to get into local state schools the system would not cope here. One young child moved from a local state school (for about a year, living abroad) and they could not find a place for him when he returned. Mother decided to home-educate him for nearly a year until they moved away again permanently rather than travel many miles to another town.

State schools would cope with an extra 7 per cent of children going in. They would just do what they always do and increase class sizes.

The choice is not to wait to see a GP or go to A&E. The choice is to ring your GP and if nobody is there, you get put through to 111, the system which the Tory party set up to replace NHS Direct. If Hunt cannot do that, then why should he expect the rest of us to do so?

111 is cheaper than NHS Direct was, because it does not use medically qualified people to run it. That's why he did not ring 111, because his children are more important than anyone else's.

gracesgran If you use the argument that charitable status for private schools is fair because people have paid tax but are not using the state system, why not give charitable status to private hospitals? Where would it all end if people were given some monetary benefit to compensate them for not using a particular public service? Also, given that the most expensive schools attract the very wealthy who can afford expensive tax lawyers, how do we know they have contributed their fair share of tax?

I don't agree with Labour policy to let these schools retain their charitable status even if they fulfil their obligations to share facilities/teachers, etc. I believe they should lose that benefit and the resulting income be ploughed into the state system.

There are other countries with very successful education systems that do not give special concessions to private schools and have very few of them.

rosequartz, I dont read many comments of newspapers online any more, as they are getting filled with bile.

Eloethan you seem to be saying that because some very wealthy people evade paying taxes, independent schools to which some very wealthy people, who may or may not evade taxes, should have their charitable status withdrawn.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, should state schools to which very wealthy people send their children also have cuts to their funding?

Our local grammer school was given charitable status some years ago now. John Redwood's son was there at the time. I could never understand how it could be classed as a charity.

janeainsworth The comment was that people who send their children to private schools have paid tax but are not using state education - so it is fair that private schools have charitable status. My main point was should we therefore give private hospitals charitable status? In some of the very expensive private boarding schools, 25%-50% of the pupils are from overseas and I wonder how much tax their parents contribute to this country.

As to the point about some wealthy parents using the state system, I expect some do, but I suspect that the overwhelming majority don't.

With all due respect Eloethan, I realise that was the point you were answering, but I was taking you up on your implied assertion that wealthy people are probably tax-dodgers.
It just seemed rather unfair.
I don't know how you can generalise either about the financial status of people who choose to send their children to either state or independent schools.
My children all went to the local state comprehensive, and there were some very wealthy parents there.
Although one local resident was convicted a few years ago of drug trafficking/ money laundering, as far as I know there haven't been any convictions for tax evasion.

People who pay taxes but who choose not to send their kids to a state school benefit, just like the rest of us, from a well-educated population—doctors, teachers in private and state schools, hospitals, roads, etc. If private schools have charitable status, state schools should too. The issue is whether schools are charitable institutions. I'd say they aren't.

I fail to see how a private/independant school can be classed as a charity. It is a service that you choose to use. Afterall there is a free school system available to all. Exactly the same as choosing not to use the NHS for an operation or an NHS dentist or whatever. They are all services that one would choose to use (if you could afford it) and therefore pay for. Not charities at all.

Ben Goldacre thinks Jeremy Hunt taking his children to A&E was the most ridiculous thing he could do.

nhaspace.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/huntmustgo/

Who is Ben Goldacre, is he Jeremy Hunt's GP?

Rose

Isabel Oakeshott on why Emily Thornberry should be given her job back. Oakeshott is right.

A good comment by Oakeshott. I agree with Bags

Eloethan says "why not give charitable status to private hospitals? Many of the none profit making organisations are. More than a third of the UK private healthcare sector is made up of charities, which must reinvest any profits they make.

There always seems to me to be a bit of dog in the manger view of anything provided privately. Raise the standards of the state provision and they would all be out of business. I would loudly cheer if that happened. We are not, after all, a communist state.