Did you vote Lib Dem to help the Tories dismantle the BBC and the NHS ?

Nick Clegg attempted to to sell the idea of the coalition to Lib Dem members on the basis that the Lib Dems would be a moderating influence over the excesses of the Tory right, but it seems clear that far more policy coming from the coalition is Tory, and only a tiny party of it is in any way Lib Dem.

This week we have seen the Tories announce a major overhaul of the NHS. Indeed the plan has been described as the most radical overhaul of the NHS since it was created. It essentially removes any democratic control of the NHS, it removes much of the strategic planning that currently exists across areas, and with the removal of the PCTs it eradicates the economies of scale that are clearly evident in a Primary Care Trust that covers, for example, a whole County. Instead, we are to have groups of Doctors (this weeks government buzzword is "consortia" who will have their own admin staff, their own accountants, their own HR people, their own IT staff, who will run what services they want to provide locally.

Anyone who knows anything about economics can see that this is going to save absolutely no cash at all. Indeed, Paul Burstow, the Lib Dem MP wheeled out by the Tories this week to justify the Tories latest insult to the intelligent, argued that many PCT staff who will lose their jobs will find themselves employed by the new consortia. So no doubt having received a redundancy pay off (from out taxes) these people will then get the same job back with the doctors. Now that really is saving cash !

At present we have PCTs who can refuse to prescribe certain drugs (particularly life saving cancer drugs). Whatever will happen now if a local consortia have a cancer patient who needs an expensive cancer drug ? Do we think that a local doctor is more likely to give this from their budget ? Don't be so stupid.

Of course, it wouldn't be so bad had any of this been in the party manifestos. According to the Lib Dems own health policy, the party pledged;

We will scrap central targets and guarantee that you get your treatment on time. We will give people the power to stop hospital closures in their area through elected local health boards. And we will put doctors and nurses back in charge of their hospitals and wards.

Clearly handing power to Doctors removes any vestiges of control away from people and democratically elected officials, so clearly the Tories have got the better of the deal.

Did Liberal Democrat voters vote Lib Dem in order to see the Tories introduce a much more divided, less democratic system which is at odds with Lib Dem policy in so many areas ?

Then we read that the BBC is to be cut back in order to show that the BBC must take its share of the pain in the recession. I don't buy this for one moment.

We all know that the Tories have for a long time wanted to see the BBC become a pale shadow of what it is. There are many Tories who would rather see 150 channels of the rubbish produced by SKY, Living TV, Challenge TV, and the many other cable and satellite channels, which cost the consumer up to £70 a month, rather than see the BBC set a standard not only for British TV and Radio, but also to the rest of the world, and all this for only two months of a full subscription to SKY.

Of course, there are the other reasons for the Tories wanting to attack the BBC. Firstly, the Tories got the full backing of Murdoch. Murdoch hates the BBC and has attacked it for years. The other reason is that the BBC is the very antithesis of Conservatism. It does not make a profit, but it provides a valuable service. This is something the Tories don't get. For all their talk of regret over making cuts, we all know that Tories loathe anything that does not turn a profit.

So in a few years time we are faced with the prospect of an emasculated BBC as the price the Tories are willing to pay for the support of The Sun and Murdoch, and the Lib Dems will have played their part in ensuring that this happens.

Is this why you voted Lib Dem ?

It's not why I voted Lib Dem.

Headlines for Daniel Hannan

Tories think you should die six months earlier

Based on the fact that the average life expectancy at birth in the US is six months less than that in the UK (using the NHS).

Tory MEP wants a higher infant mortality rate

Based on figures that show the infant mortality rate is higher (50% higher) in the US than it is in the UK (using the NHS).

Oxbridge educated wealthy man opposes free health care for poor people

Why is it always those born in to privilige that oppose anything that help poor people ?

Now it I were running a campaign in any Lib Dem seat I'd be doing mail shots to all voters asking them to sign a "Save the NHS" petition, particularly if I was in Daniel Hannan's South East region.

How to waste money NHS style

My mother was due to have an operation today. The operation had been scheduled for some weeks and was to be a "routine" thing, with my mother possibly staying in overnight, but possibly being allowed out today. However, that was before she encountered the mess that is the NHS.

Having arrived early this morning, she was told she was number eight of eight on the list of patients for that particular surgeon. Then she was told there was not bed available, but if she waited, they might be able to find a bed. Note, this was a scheduled operation so why a bed was not ready is slightly mysterious in itself.

So, my mother waited and waited and waited, then was told she could be prepared to be operated on after 5 pm. She had been at the hospital all day, but at least, so she thought, she could expect to have the operation completed. But no. Despite the surgeon and his team of assistants being available and ready to do the operation, the anaesthetist "had to go", meaning the operation was cancelled, the time of the surgeon and his operation team had been wasted, all the tests my mother had done were wasted as was the time by nurses making ready and finding a bed.

What a total waste of time, but it begs the question as to why the anaesthetist was not prepared to to stay and why the hospital does not have another anaesthetist on call ? My wife had a similar problem when giving birth in that no anaesthetist was available. Luckily my son could be delivered naturally, but it was very much feared this would not be the case.

My real real concern today though was why an the NHS be allowed to work in this way. Forget that my mother is retired, but what are the implications for the economy if this is replicated all over the country everyday with hundreds of people taking days of work only for operations to be cancelled. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that the real reason that the anaesthetist left early was due to him (or her) needing to be available at the BUPA hospital down the road or for private patients elsewhere ?

Cuts to neo-natal services in Norfolk make no sense

According the the Eastern Daily Press, cuts are to be made in the provision of neo natal services in Norfolk.

This has, from my experience, got to be a massive mistake.

I have a friend who works at the Norfolk and Norwich hospital who has told me on numerous occasions about how the Neo Natal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) has been, at times, almost 80% over occupied, such is the shortage of beds in the hospital. Whilst whilst my wife was in hospital in Labour last year in a ward (because maternity was full) she heard a midwife on her ward on the phone literally begging for some support because, in her words, she "had 14 women in various stages of Labour on her ward, she was the only midwife and she should have been one of four".

It is scandalous that the NHS can be considering cuts when it is clear that closing facilities in Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn will only put further pressure on to Norwich.

How to fiddle NHS targets

The Eastern Daily Press has a report about how NHS figures locally (and almost certainly nationally) are being fiddled.

Apparently they are keeping patients arriving at A & E departments in the ambulance they arrive in for up to 30 minutes in order to delay their official arrival time, and thus ensure they are seen withing the 30 minute target time set by the government.

Do I blame the NHS trust for this ? No. I blame the government for setting another target without looking at the bigger picture. Yet again, the government are obsessed with looking at what is measurable, but not what is important.

How Labour achieve their NHS targets

A friend of my wife has had a serious stomach problem for several months. She is a nurse in the intensive care unit at the local hospital, a ward with severe staff shortages. She his highly trained but has had to miss work because she has been feeling so ill. Having waited several weeks for a scan, she got a stomach scan (camera down the throat, etc) just before the 12 weeks cut off for the "target" to be met.

Now you would imagine that would be it, end of the problem. No. It appears that despite having a scan several weeks ago, despite the tape of the procedure having been available to look at for over a month, that it would have been looked at by now ? Of course, the answer is no.

So according to the NHS statistics, she will have been seen within the specified time, but the NHS are apparently going to take up to 6 weeks longer before actually examining the tape so out friend remains in pain, unable to eat properly, and the intensive care unit at the same hospital still have problems with staffing.

It's a crazy situation that you get seen by the hospital but they do nothing for several weeks.

Does government encourage a more neighbourly society ?

People will think this comment silly and possibly lacking in political punch, but I was struck today by something my wife told me about the mother and baby group that meets in our village.

Now having only lived here for about three years we do not have any "local" friends. I have lots of family who live just two miles away and we have lots of friends who live about three miles away, but locally we know very few people. So going to mother and baby group has been a good way for my wife to make some local friends who have children of a similar age. As a result of this my wife now knows people, we have both got to know new people and we feel more part of the community and more involved in what is going on.

So what's the problem ? Well the mother and baby group is only for mothers who have their "first" baby. Yes, if you are new to the area and are having another child, you are not welcome at mother and baby group.

I appreciate that the mother and baby group is put on by the health visitors and it is therefore an NHS thing, but why isn't it used as a way of involving all mothers (and fathers) and anyone who has a baby, not just a first.

If we were new to the area and we were having a second child the message would be "Don't come here expecting to make friends".

Sadly it is a case of non joined up thinking and is an example of how all governments seem to see the value of community.

Tory toff plays up to the stereotype

Who says the Tories have changed ?

Even Conservatives don't believe the Tories can cut taxes and improve services

The nearly always excellent Dizzy Thinks blog highlight the contradiction between the Conservatives pledge to cut taxes whilst at the same time wanting to increase services. You have to ask if Tories don't believe their policies, why should anyone else ?

Dizzy seems to be at odds with the Tories most ecent announcement that each new mother will get 6 hours of maternity nursing help each day for the first week of a baby's life and the costs this will incur,

"At a time when there is a shortage of midwives already, are we seriously going to propose spending around a quarter of a billion each year on maternity nurses? Come off it! "

I agree with him. Actually what we need is a proper system of guaranteeing pregnant women a midwife. My own wife was told when by the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital that despite her waters breaking, despite early signs of pre-exclampsia and also despite having regular contractions, being five weeks early and being 2 cm dilated, this was not enough to warrant having a bed, and was told she would be sent hom. the fact that she had the baby less than two hours later, before they had a chance to send her home highlighted the fact that hospitals need more maternity beds and more midwives, not maternity nurses or state nannies.

Irrespective of your views on the subject of maternity nurses, Dizzy's point is clear. Can the Tories afford their promises if they are to match Labour's NHS funding plans (as they have promised) and also add new services whilst also cutting taxes ?

Why does agreeing with Andrew Rossindell make me feel dirty ?

Far be it for me to agree with one of the most unpleasent right wingers in the Tory party, but Andrew Rossindell MP's question to Jack Straw in the House of Commons, which I plucked form Conservative Home is a good one which deserves a proper reply.

Andrew Rosindell MP: "Can the Secretary of State for Justice explain why a patient in an NHS hospital has only £3 a day spent on their food, yet a criminal locked up in a police cell has £12 a day spent on food? Will the Secretary of State enlighten us as to why the figure is four times more for a criminal in a cell?"

Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice: "As ever, the hon. Gentleman, who comes from the same great county as I do, asks an important question. The issue is an interesting one, and I shall revert to him and the House on the matter."

When my wife was in hospital for a few days after giving birth, I used to have to take her downstairs to the canteen each night and keep bringing in snacks for her, not because the food was not nice, but simply because the portions were tiny. It makes you wonder how some people eat their way to good health when you are constantly hungry.

Will it be a constitution or a reform treaty Gordon ?

I see Gordon Brown is proposing a written constitution for the NHS.

I am slightly perplexed about this. In all my years of study at university we debated the country have a bill of rights and the pros and cons of a written constitution but I never remember there being any discussion on whether the NHS should have a written constitution.

Perhaps though it is a sign of the fear that Gordon brown now has of the Tories. He knows that with a good lead in the polls which would probably give the Tories a small working majority, the Tories could increase the levels of privatisation in the NHS, if they get in power and this might be Gordon Brown's way of stopping the Tories doing this ?

One thing is for certain, there will not be a "we want a referendum" campaign for this constitution.

Here is something else Nick Clegg should be campaigning against in 2008

Nick Clegg is right to highlight ID cards and the erosion of civil liberties as his main focus in 2008, but given the recent ID thefts and data loss scandals involving the government, he should also be seeking to halt the government#s plans to further centralise data in the UK.

It is clear this government has not got the first idea how to protect and make data safe, and given their woeful record in recent weeks, their broken promises when they stated data would be sent encrypted and by proper courier after they lost the data of 25,000 Standard Life customers, only to ignore the rules and lose 25 million peoples data, and their continued drive to collect more data on us all, Nick Clegg really does need to take the public's concerns on board and work to halt these plans.

When the first NHS health records have gone "live" today, it is only a matter of time before hackers not only have our bank accounts and pin numbers, but our full health records too.

An NHS cock-up that isn't the government's fault ?

It is nice to know that a cock up which meant a new scanner meant for the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Kings Lynn was not, for once, the fault of this bloody useless Labour government.

Read about it HERE.

Do the Tories want an independent NHS or a private one ?

The Tories are proposing to introduce a Bill to Parliament which would effectively given independence to the NHS. The so called NHS Autonomy and Accountability Bill makes me wonder who will be accountable and what would it achieve ?

When the Tories were last in power they had an obsession with creating executive agencies who would themselves take the fall for government errors and mistakes, allowing Ministers to carry on regardless and never take responsibility. Famous Michael Howard got rid of Derek Lewis, the man in charge of the prison service rather than Michael Howard taking the blame for the mistakes in his department. This sort of "escape clause" that Ministers like, but the public detest, is one of the reasons why people so distrust politicians. The fact that the Tories include the word "accountability" in the Bill's name makes me think this is a plan to allow officials to take the blame, and the falls, for government ministers.

This is not to say that things have been any better under Labour. The creation of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE (which seems an absolute contradiction in terms), is an example of how Labour have sought to pass of responsibility for the NHS licensing drugs so that government ministers and Labour MP's can blame those awful people at NICE rather than taking responsibility for their own government.

There is little chance of the government taking on board the Tories ideas of allowing the NHS to be more independent because in many ways, through the setting up of Primary Care Trusts (which take the blame already for local decisions), the government has allowed the NHS an element of local autonomy already.

So what is the main reason for the Tories wanting to allow the NHS to be more independent ? Those who were brought up under the Tories (and I should stress how lucky these younger Tories are who don't remember Tory governments) might be slightly suspicious and see this as the first step in Tory plans to see the NHS start charging for things more often and then opening the way for a fully privatised health service.

Okay, perhaps I am putting town and two together and coming up with five, but a leopard does not change it's spots, and we all know the Tories want to privatise health services. This is just a first step and we should all be wary.

The problem with Labour and statistics

The problem with statistics is not that 97% of them are made up nor is it that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. No , the problem with statistics is that they only record what is measurable, not what is important. This is a basic concept this government has failed to grasp.

Not since the creation of the Domesday book have we been governed by people so obsessed with recording every minutiae of data, yet this government uses its statistics not to inform its decision making, instead of this it uses its recording and reporting of statistics to justify its actions and to make excuses for its mistakes. Aren't these the same things anyway ? Well no.

If statistics were used as a guide to assist in policy planning the government would not yesterday have introduced a flat 18% capital gains tax rate which has been shown 24 hours later to be a potential death threat to workers share save schemes. Likewise if they had been planning their mini budget for "some time", as Labour say, their own statistics should have shown them that the abolition of taper relief would also have the effect of discriminating against the very enterprising groups the government is seeking to encourage.

No, this government uses statistics more to justify what it does and ignores those that go against what they want to impose. Worse still though, the government uses statistics to make excuses when things go wrong.

Take education as an example. Schools with low pass rates in their SAT's and GCSE's used to be assessed not only on their results, but this was cross referenced against the economic and social conditions the pupils were coming from. It took account of the number of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and also the number on free school meals ( a recognised measure of social deprivation). But no, not this government. The latest warnings from government is that these aspects, these social factors are not important or relevant. Instead, the government are making threats to local education authorities to attack schools, make threats, intimidate schools where necessary, in order to force results up through fear. The government know that the SAT's are not a measure of a school, indeed, that is why they included the "added value" criteria in the results. However, by now ignoring this "added value" and looking at the pass or fail results only, they want to find schools to blame, in fact, they want to use the statistics to blame schools, teachers, governors, pupils and parents for their own failings in properly supporting, funding and helping schools in socially deprived areas.

Why are they able to do this ? Because their statistics and figures record what is measurable, but not what is really important.

Then there is what happened in the hospitals in Kent in the news today. A hospital trust so obsessed with meeting government targets and so prepared to jeopardise patient care in order to jump through government hoops, has been caught out. But how were they caught out ? Was it through government statistics. The evidence the government constantly collects in order to monitor the work of the NHS ? No, of course not. They were caught by the media, by patients groups and by relatives who could not believe the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust were literally getting away with murder.

The government targets this NHS trusts were seeking to hit were, in the great scheme of things, not important. What was important was not letting 90 people die. But do the government's statistics actuall record what is important ? No, of course they don't, as clearly the evidence in this case proves. No, they mrerly record what is easily recordable, what is easily used in Labour spin and press releases and what makes headlines. The NHS fails to record what is important.

When the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust were even issuing press statements claiming that the patients were themselves at fault for contracting the C-Dif infection and dying, it shows you the fear in the NHS trusts. they know they themselves have to explain why the government's own statistics have not been met and will go to any lengths to get themselves of the hook.

Sadly, when it comes to the NHS and Education, the two areas supposedly at the heart of what the Labour Party are about, there is a giant vacuum of interest or understanding.

The NHS does not need to constantly be meeting needless targets and education could do with a moratorium on new strategies for 10 years in order for schools to get to grips with the multiple other strategies the government has introduced on an almost yearly basis.

Given the low chance of a Lib Dem government in the short term, I have always felt that a Labour government is, at the very least, preferable to a Tory one in every circumstance. However, I am starting to think I was wrong.

Why Rudy Giuliani is not fit to be US President.

Rudolph Giuliani is trying to raise his international profile in an attempt to get selected as the Republican candidate for the US presidential elections, but does so bu making stupid ill informed comments about the UK and the NHS.

He said today "I had prostate cancer seven years . My chance of survival in the US is 82%; my chance of survival if I was here in England is below 50%."

Of course Mr Giuliani had a higher chance of survival. He is a rich man. Perhaps we should ask Mr Giuliani what chance a poor worker in America has of surviving if they earn too much to qualify for medicare and too little to have private health insurance.

Of course the NHS has lessons to learn, but not from America, where good health care is not for the poor.

Yes, abusive people ought to be charged for their NHS treatment

It might come as no surprise to people that i am supporting a policy proposed by my friend Norman Lamb, but it is always shocking to me that the NHS are expected to treat people with kindness and care when the staff themselves are being abused by patients.

The Norman Lamb, the Lib Dems health spokesman, has suggested that abusive drunks should be charged for their NHS treatment. Yes, I would go even further and given the NHS the right
to charge for treatment and even remove treatment from those people who are violent, racist or verbally abusive to NHS staff who are performing their duties.

Nurses, cleaners, porters and doctors deserve more protection.

Is it time to make dental students who don't want to work in the NHS pay for their own training ?

The BBC highlights a report by Dundee University that shows that only a small proportion of Dental Students want to do NHS work, with the vast majority wanting to concentrate on private medical work, which pays vastly more.

The question for me to ask here is whether the state is paying too much to train dentists who have no intention of repaying their debt to the state that helped fund and provide their training.

I assume that dental students pay top up fees, but this suggests that this is a top up to the amount that the state contributes towards their education. If they are not going to make a commitment to the NHS, for at least a period of time, shouldn't the state have the option to withdraw funding from them and instead use this money to fully fund, without top up fees, dental students who want to work for the NHS ?

Dental students are, in my opinion, an odd bunch anyway. Nobody goes in to dentistry through love of teeth. It is clearly a career based around making as much money as possible. Some people suggest that dentistry is similar to being a doctor. I disagree strongly with this view. Doctors save lives. they also make a commitment to work in the NHS. Unless dentists are prepare to do the same, their training should be changed and incentivized to make them work in and for the NHS.

The Health Statistics for this week

Top health statistics for this week;

1) Scottish women have the lowest survival rate from cancer of any group in Western Europe.

2) Cancer survival rates amongst the general population are are on a par with poorer parts or Eastern Europe.

3) British stroke victims have also the lowest recovery rate of any nation in Western Europe.

4) £80million has been paid out to health bosses in the wake of reorganisations in the NHS.

5) Alan Johnson, the former "favourite" to be Labour Deputy leader and currently Health minister backs plans to close four maternity units in Greater Manchester.

I think we can see the real progress that the NHS has made under Labour.

Cameron makes hospital howler

David Cameron has tried to justify that his list of hospitals facing cuts is correct whilst his own backbenchers are already going around apologising on behalf of their leader's gaffe.


"Dave" claimed that 29 district hospitals are facing cuts to emergency and maternity services. However, it turns out that his figures, statistics and even hospital names are completely wrong !



One backbencher Tory MP Henry Bellingham was forced to apologise to staff at the local hospital in his Kings Lynn constituency, which he says David Cameron wrongly included on the hit list. he told the BBC

"I wasn't consulted on this and I apologise unreservedly to the staff of the hospital,"

"I do think there's a lesson for all opposition parties, all parties actually and the government, if they are issuing a statement that affects an organisation, be it a hospital, the police, some school, they should always consult the chief executive or the headmaster or whoever it is."


This is the second time in a week that a Norfolk MP has had to apologise to a local hospital after Norman Lamb apologised for claims about the standard of food hygiene at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. However, at least local MP's Bellingham and Lamb had the decency to apologise immediately and not compound the problem by restating the false information. This is not a lesson David Cameron has learnt.


In spite of what the local Tory MP has said, Mr Cameron reiterated that Queen Elizabeth hospital in Kings Lynn was under threat as it delivered under 3,000 live births per year - the level at which the strategic health authority decided a unit is not viable. It appears though that Dave is ill informed about maternity services in Norfolk. Having recently become a new dad and living in Norfolk I know that the Queen Elizabeth is one of only three maternity units in Norfolk and cannot be shut die to the strain it would put on the already over worked Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. It is a shame David Cameron is so ill informed on such matters.

Another hospital Dave has on his Tory hit list does not even have a maternity unit or an accident and emergency facility. Yet despite the absence of these facilities in the first place, Mr Cameron insists these units are to be closed. the hospital in question is Altrincham General Hospital in Trafford.


The BBC report HERE highlights a number of other hospitals that completely refute Mr Cameron's allegations. Despite this, David Cameron has repeated "We stand by what we have said".


Arrogance or stupidity from David Cameron ?


P.S. I note Iain Dale made reference to the Norman Lamb story last week when he visited the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and offered a swift apology. I wonder if Iain will be reporting it when the Tories do something even worse !