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

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…