Skip to main content

Labour Manifesto - any Qualified Provider

One of the things Labour are criticising is the idea of patients being able to have treatment from organisations which are not directly part of the NHS. It is worth looking at their 2010 Manifesto:

In health, this means if we don’t meet our guarantees, for example
on waiting lists, the NHS will fund you to go private.

We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care, particularly where they bring innovation – such as in end-oflife care and cancer services, and increase capacity.

Where changes are needed, we will be fair to NHS services and staff and give them a chance to improve, but where they fail to do so we will look to alternative
provision.

Patient power will be increased. Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of
quality at NHS costs.

Empowering NHS staff and enabling Mutuals
Central to our agenda for improvement is the hardworking NHS workforce.
We will continue the process of empowering staff – freeing them from bureaucracy and ensuring they get proper support.

And across the NHS we will extend the right for staff, particularly nurses, to request to run their own services in the notfor-profit sector

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
it's already illegal, that's the rumour anyway, to have anything that isn't tortured on animals first. or if you demand that it rmains confidential i.e. no records kept, despite them still probably taking that oath....or if you deamnd oknow the names of the people touching you...

and if you refuse? they abduct you, throw you out of an ambulance, sentenced to fate far worse than death...then put your mummy in prison for murder! I'm not making this shit up you know...it wan't non physical enityA, B c or f that is responsible for these crimes....they weren't prosecuted, therefore still doing it and will continue to do so until they are stopped....
chris gregory said…
its not who provides the care,its the care they provide that is the problem,and who is answerable when it goes wrong,as someone whos son was profoundly damaged at birth by medical negligence,i wouldnt have cared who delivered him aslong as they had delivered him safely as you would expect,but when it goes wrong,childrens lifes are taken from them and families destroyed,and the care providers are able to deny wrong doing or negligence,by hiding behind there insurers demand that no liability is accepted,forcing families to fight for justice through a system stacked against them,whilst trying to care for severly damaged children,hold a family together,dealing with social services not geared up to meet a families needs,due to finances,ending with the damaged child being placed in a foster placement,just to meet his needs,everything just spirals out of control,all stemming from policy and procedures of a materinty unit geared up more as a money saving business than a place where mothers can go at there most needy time and expect the best safe treatment for themselfs and there unborn child,a few pounds saved on a bodged delivery leads to millions of pounds of expence in later wholelife care,children in foster placements,and families ruined by overbaring socialservice interference,with there cheapest package from cradle to grave mantra,dressed up as what is best for the child,when what is best for the child was a safe delivery,or at worst an early admission of guilt and early settlement to allow the family to care for there child at home as part of the family,so to sum up,its not who provides the care,its the quality of care,to avoid negligence and when it goes wrong put there hands up and admit they got it wrong,allowing the best outcome from the worst of circumstances.
chris gregory said…
meet the nhs standards???? surely need to go alot further than there standards,end medical negligence or admit when there wrong and save the pain and ruined lifes left behind by the nhs and there policy of hiding behind insurance companies in order to deny there wrongdoing,any improvement is a improvement,damaging babies at birth,letting families down,disabled children going into foster placements due to lack of fianances in socialservices,overbaring socialservices calling the shots for a problem caused by the system there part of,its a shambles,wheres the service in the national health service? first class care with positive outcomes,and fair treatment when it goes wrong,is it too much to ask??

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…