Skip to main content

Can you trust Labour with the NHS? Should Andy Burnham Go?

Labour have to respond to the revelations today that they did not respond properly to being sent data on higher than expected death rates from 2001.

The link above is from an interview on BBC Breakfast (That I watched whilst in the Gym as one does).
Sir Brian Jarman, Emeritus Professor at Imperial College's School of Public Health has said information on higher-than-expected death rates was ignored for more than a decade.
He told BBC Breakfast: "My view is that there was political pressure for the information to be ignored and had been ignored at least since 2001.
"I actually sent the data to Andy Burnham in March 2010 and seven of the hospitals in the 14 were among the ones that I sent him."
"We published the information in national newspapers every year from 2001 onwards," he added.
We also have the further revelations about the Liverpool Care Pathway. This seems to have been used in the case of John Maddocks whose daughter was imprisoned in secret for taking him to a solicitor in an attempt to rescue him from a care home (in which he died).

To me it appears clear that Labour were more intent on covering up problems with the NHS than sorting them out. That is a very strong allegation to which they have to respond, but I think it is in practise too late.

Andy Burnham, himself, is in a touch and go situation. March 2010 was a relatively late point at which he could have responded. However, he was health minister for much of this period and part of the Labour government complacency about inadequate standards in the NHS.

The interview also mentioned that the Labour administration and the heads of the regulators have already admitted substantially that there was a cover up going on.

My own view is that the obsession with targets deprioritized the care of patients.

Comments

Mr. Hemming.

You, and your readers, might be interested in this very short video of Jersey Justice in action HERE

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. …

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…