“The Conservative-led government”

Glad to see you’re following the Fuhrer’s instructions to the press, then

@1 – Ha ha ha ha. Glad to see you still think there a “coalition” going on in the govt.

@ 1 Roger

“Glad to see you’re following the Fuhrer’s instructions to the press, then”

Weird Hitler references aside, who do you think is leading the coalition? Let me give you a hint: his name starts with “D” and end with “avid Cameron”. Yep, he’s a Tory.

Interesting sideline on semantics here – it should be pointed out that since we only have one government, the choice of ‘Conservative-led’ as a label is clearly ideological and deliberate. No one is going to be confused by the opening line ‘The government is determined to improve…’

Nothing wrong with that, but it does immediately alert you to the fact that the writer is effectively following the Labour-party line.

They won’t take on the doctors in a straightforward debate on the issues, it’ll be the usual three B’s bullshit, bribery and bullying.

http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/70-british-politics/5422-revealed-government-secretly-uses-doctors-to-spin-tribal-war-for-nhs-hearts-and-minds-oh-and-p80-billion

On topic, people trust doctors because they are told to and doctors are seen as only interested in healing (actually many seem only interested in getting patients out the door…).

I do not think trust levels on that basis will necesarily translate to the public arena, especially as the Conservatives will be able to find doctors to speak in support of their plans as well – so it could be doctors (Conservative) v doctors (Labour), not Conservatives v doctors.

@ 4 Watchman

“Nothing wrong with that, but it does immediately alert you to the fact that the writer is effectively following the Labour-party line.”

Not really. It’s ideological in that it’s anti-Tory (assuming that the following piece is negative), but it doesn’t say much more than that. I’d call the government “Conservative-led”, and I wasn’t even aware that WAS the Labour Party line.

As oppossed to Labour who gave GPs a 100% pay rise without realising. Trebles all round!!

Chaise,

Would you always refer to the government as ‘Conservative-led’, rather than Tory-led, or Tory, or coalition, or just the government? It is about the longest form possible…

It was the line that Mr Milliband’s spin doctor sent round to all the papers, that the government should be referred to not as coalition but as Conservative led. It didn’t get a good reception really (hence the fact it was reported on the internet), but it does immediately make people sit up when the phrase appears now. Obviously I accept this could be coincidence, and Roger’s reaction in 1 above is hardly fair, but it context it does look political.

Which is not to say that there is a problem with political polemic on this site, wierdly enough – hence my attempt above to get back to discussing the contents of the post, not the tone (which amazingly is anti-government (or anti Conservative-led government if you prefer…)).

@ 9 Watchman

“Would you always refer to the government as ‘Conservative-led’, rather than Tory-led, or Tory, or coalition, or just the government? It is about the longest form possible…”

I’d call it “Tory-led” if I was making a point about the Tories, “coalition” if not.

“It was the line that Mr Milliband’s spin doctor sent round to all the papers, that the government should be referred to not as coalition but as Conservative led. It didn’t get a good reception really (hence the fact it was reported on the internet), but it does immediately make people sit up when the phrase appears now.”

Fair enough, but in that case perhaps the spin doctors have done the rest of us a disservice. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that the government is Tory-led to make a point. In fact, sometimes it’s essential, given how polical discourse works. If a Tory supporter is listing the perceived failings of a Labour government, it makes a lot more sense to respond “but what about [perceived failing] of this Tory-led government” than to refer to a coalition. It’ll be even more important a few decades from now, when people might not even realise that the coalition of 2010 onwards was led by the Conservative.

What I wouldn’t do is call it a Tory government, because that’s disingenuous.

It is not a tory led govt or a coalition govt. It is a tory govt. End of.

The Lie Dems are nothing but lobby fodder. They serve no function other than to make up the votes to get stuff through parliament. Clegg is a national joke, Vichy Cable has pissed away any credibility he once had, and Simon Hughes is still looking for his principles.

The Barnsley by election showed how quickly people learned that a vote for the Lie Dems got you a tory. The Lib Dems could have put a block on a lot of this shit and told the tories that they would just help them with the deficit in the national interest. They could have said …..you have no mandate for national health reform, or many of the other things you are trying to ram through. But they have decided to go for broke, and fuck up as much as they can in a short period of time.

A lot of public sector workers voted for the Lie Dems last time. Good luck knocking on those doors next time around.

“It would appear the Conservatives have seriously miscalculated in taking on a profession which 76% of the population trust more than them”

You’d think. But somehow they seem to get away with these things by painting doctors, teachers, policemen etc as public-sector vested-interest gold-plated-pension anti-reform stick-in-the-muds who need a good dose of Fresh Thinking. How you square that circle I don’t know.

@ 11 sally

Apart from anything else, calling it a Tory government makes it easier for the Tories to take credit for things that the Lib Dems insisted on when they made the coalition deal. So they can say “look, we’re not the nasty party, we did this!” when in fact they only did so to get into government.

Of course they can take on doctors and win; it wouldn’t be the first time a government had made proposals opposed by the medical profession. Like, say, the NHS. Have to admit, even as an ardent socialist who believes in evidence-based argumentation, I couldn’t care less what the medical profession (or at least its self declared leaders in the BMA) have to say for themselves re: Tory proposals.

Is there a Labour-led government that I’ve not heard about?

Referring to it as a Tory-led government or a Cameron-led government or anything other than “the government” or “the Coalition” is biased, bit rich of you to be criticising the BBC for using “savings” over “cuts”. Hypocrisy never stopped Labourites and their “I’m not Labour” little red riding hood followers though.

@SallyTheCunt

“The Lib Dems could have put a block on a lot of this shit and told the tories that they would just help them with the deficit in the national interest.”

A lot of this “shit” = deficit reduction

Funny how you now accept there is an actual deficit, I thought you were channelling Richard Murphy’s denial that there was one at all.

@16

“A lot of this “shit” = deficit reduction”

O RLY. I think you’ll find that the vast majority of public sector “reform” (there’s a lovely word for you semantics fiends out there ) is in fact enabling most of our public services to be farmed off to MegaCorp Inc for some serious $$$ for the guys who are missing their bankers bonuses. Deficit reduction my arse – the economy has gone more tits-up since these clowns have been in charge and I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re double-dipping this time next year. Oh and not to mention an extra 2 million on the dole queue.

Deficit reduction! Christ. You’ll be telling me the tooth fairy exists next.

Deficit reduction has nothing to do with the privatisation of the NHS. Or all the other brownshirt obsessions, and right wing political correctness.

sure they do http://vimeo.com/20715539

I’m certainly aware of the bad press that proposed reforms of the NHS are attracting from healthcare professionals:

Financial fears among health services leaders far exceed those about other changes to the NHS, according to research
http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/mar/07/nhs-reform-finance-fears-confederation-survey

The government’s NHS reforms will return medical care to the standards of the 1930s and 40s, a leading doctor has warned
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8365334/NHS-reforms-will-return-health-service-to-1930s.html

But I’ve just returned from a meeting in the civic centre about my local GP-managed commissioning consortium. As best I could gather the collective intention of local GPs is to make savings on treatment costs without compromising the standards of care of the most needy. That was presented as an inevitable, if regretable necessity and none around the table dissented.

The example of potential savings given was switching from branded to generic drugs wherever possible. Personally, I’m surprised that there is much remaining scope for doing that by now. To my personal knowledge, the potential financial gains from switching to generics was already the academic orthodoxy in medical schools and pharmacy faculties 50 years ago.

Look what David Cameron and others have done to the vulnerable, sick, disabled and poorest in society ! We cannot trust David Cameron and this coalition of misery with our health.

A reminder of the Lies and Deceit !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UvqmZlaAPY

Could you really trust David Cameron and Nick Clegg along with this Coalition of Misery with our National Health Service.

@14 – spot on! Everyone knows people are living longer; the medical profession are fine at looking after themselves – and rightly so etc etc. But they’re not really the problem, the problem is people are living longer. Shouldn’t be too hard to sort out.

“Shouldn’t be too hard to sort out.”

Several years back, I suggested here that a modest public investment in a network of local terminator stations would result in large savings in public spending on the wasteful costs of medical treatment for the aged and also in state pensions as well.

Of course, all that would have to be wrapped up in suitable euphemisms for public consumption – we could call the stations: Harold Shipman Centres, in belated honour of the man who anticipated the way things were going.

Fascinating digressions around the term ‘conservative-led government’ aside, Neil Foster is absolutely right to suggest this government (let’s use a neutral term – I prefer “The Banker-owned government”) has perhaps bitten off more than it can chew in thinking it can flagrantly ignore the intense hostility of the GP community. Pointing out that GPs have received a massive pay-hike in recent years is a misnomer. Yes, they’ve got loads more money, the reason they’re opposing this is not out of self-interest, but they can truly see the free-marketeering disaster it will lead to. ALL branches of the medical profession are fiercely opposed to this stitch-up, because it is a clear disgrace.

So the government presses on? Okay, let’s see how they like a strike by the BMA, something which has never previously happened in history, but which the BMA are now seriously discussing. The Banker-owned government will be praying for the days when all they had to cave in over was flogging off our forests. Bring it on fucks.

flogging off our forest….love it! bring it on!

“Their last ‘Veracity Index’ in 2009 shows that ‘government ministers’ are trusted by a mere 16% of the adult population, lower than business leaders (25%), trade union officials (38%), and vastly behind the clergy (71%), teachers (88%) and doctors (92%). This is consistent with many previous years’ polls.

“It would appear the Conservatives have seriously miscalculated in taking on a profession which 76% of the population trust more than them.”

The error of logic here is to assume that general trust is even across the board. The public may trust doctors in general, but that does not mean they will trust them on the specific issue of, say, doctors’ pay. Or the future of the NHS. On many issues doctors (or Fat Cats as they will no doubt be called) are vulnerable to a decent PR campaign.

Personally I hope neither side goes down that path. The public’s trust in doctors is a good thing and to equate them in the public eye with bankers, say, would not be good for Britain.

@25

So the government presses on? Okay, let’s see how they like a strike by the BMA, something which has never previously happened in history, but which the BMA are now seriously discussing.

Speaking as a member of the BMA, it’s not really a serious discussion. There are a small minority who are deluded into thinking it might happen but in reality any form of industrial action by doctors is never going to happen.

As to the OP question; can the Tories take on Doctors and win? Of course they can. That doesn’t mean I like it. That doesn’t change the fact that this health bill is a travesty in every way. However they will probably win.

AFZ

P.S. It is also a fact that most doctors opposed the NHS at its inception and my profession covered itself in anything but glory and much of what was said and done was nothing short of shameful. Bevan was incredibly skillful in the way he coopted doctors.

“It is also a fact that most doctors opposed the NHS at its inception and my profession covered itself in anything but glory and much of what was said and done was nothing short of shameful. Bevan was incredibly skillful in the way he coopted doctors.”

But surely that’s the point Dr Zog? Bevan was skillful, and won them over. This government sees no point in winning them over and is just ignoring and riding rough-shod over their repeatedly stated objections. They need the co-operation of GPs to implement these “reforms”, and they haven’t got it. How will this stand-off resolve itself?

@29

But surely that’s the point Dr Zog? Bevan was skillful, and won them over. This government sees no point in winning them over and is just ignoring and riding rough-shod over their repeatedly stated objections. They need the co-operation of GPs to implement these “reforms”, and they haven’t got it. How will this stand-off resolve itself?

Bevan also had the advantage of being right, which Lansley certainly doesn’t.

I suspect it will resolve itself with the government ploughing on regardless.

Doctors will eventually fall into line for one very simple reason. The comes a point where the only way to resist the government is to hurt the patients. As most of us do the job for the sake of the patients, we will grumble and then do our best to make it work as best we can, knowing that the NHS is being destroyed.

AFZ

“Doctors were initially opposed to Bevan’s plan, primarily on the stated grounds that it reduced their level of independence. Bevan had to get them onside, as, without doctors, there would be no health service. Being a shrewd political operator, Bevan managed to push through the radical health care reform measure by dividing and cajoling the opposition, as well as by offering lucrative payment structures for consultants. On this subject he stated, “I stuffed their mouths with gold”.”

From Wikipedia. Doesnt sound like he convinced them at all – he divided them then paid some of them off.

In what way is the term ‘Conservative led Government’ factually wrong? Is the Government ‘Conservative led’, Yes or No? If yes, then what is your problem?

Funny how when anyone objects uses of language to disguise facts the Right want exposed, then that is ‘Political Correctness’, but when you would rather hide the Tories’ grubby fingerprints all over an unpopular policy, you call it ‘bias’. If you are proud of the policy, then so what? If you are ashamed of the policy, perhaps it it’s the policy that’s wrong not whether or not it is ‘Tory led’ or ‘Coalition’ policy.

“He divided them then paid some of them off.”

which is what the tories will end up doing once several doctors realise there is money to be made.

And to support my argument that doctors are critical to winning public support it’s been revealed the government recognises this too. New revelations show it has been using private firms to get supposedly independent doctors to support their policies:

http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/70-british-politics/5422-revealed-government-secretly-uses-doctors-to-spin-tribal-war-for-nhs-hearts-and-minds-oh-and-p80-billion

Time for the good guys to step up and speak out again.

I hope that the ideas in the OP might lead to some public response. One wonder really what more it would need, but in five years we can expect mass complaints about the consequences once people start to find they cannot afford treatments that used to be free to them. By then it will be too late.

I’ll try some of the suggestions but I have a sinking feeling about my MP. He’s Nick “Nice but Thick” Herbert and he’s a party-line man.

@ 32 Jim

“If you are ashamed of the policy, perhaps it it’s the policy that’s wrong not whether or not it is ‘Tory led’ or ‘Coalition’ policy.”

Point!

Couldn’t those pesky LibDems sabotage the NHS ‘reforms’. Or are they too feeble even to do that?

Oliver Letwin, the Conservative Minister tasked with reviewing NHS policy last year, previously told a private meeting that “the NHS will not exist” within five years of a Conservative election victory

Wow, I can hardly believe how barefaced you are being Neil Foster!

You attribute a statement to Oliver Letwin and helpfully provide a link.

The implication is that the link will stand up the attribution.

But if one actually follows the link, one finds:

The remarks….have been furiously denied by Mr Letwin….. a Conservative Party spokesman said: “Oliver Letwin categorically said nothing of the sort….. this report is complete fiction.”

Oh and the 6th task is to follow @nhsdirectaction on twitter and take part in some powerful peaceful protests in the weeks ahead. Also check out http://www.nhsdirectaction.co.uk which is launched later today for more information.