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.