“At the heart of the Tory NHS ‘reforms’ are concern about the encroachment of the private sector” – oh, the irony, from the party that gave us ISTCs, PFI and privatised out of hours GP care.

Of course former Labour health ministers wouldn’t use insider knowledge to beef up their own bank accounts, now would they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7196420.stm

Anyway what is the point of this article – because if it’s about the coalition’s continuation of NuLab’s privatisation (of the NHS) by stealth agenda, or unscrupulous behaviour when there is an opportunity for a politician, or a politicians wife to get their nose in the trough, then that is hardly news at all, is it?

Yes, A&E, there’s irony there in terms of the party but not necessarily in the case of the MP.

I’ve not checked Diane’s voting record but would not be overly surprised to find that she’d voted against the introduction of PFIs, etc.

“On Sally Lansley’s website she is at pains to say: “we do not lobby government (i.e. seek to influence or amend legislation or policy) on behalf of our clients. Neither is it appropriate for us to handle any client with interests in the health sector.”"

So that’s alright then.

we do not lobby government (i.e. seek to influence or amend legislation or policy) on behalf of our clients. Neither is it appropriate for us to handle any client with interests in the health sector.

They don’t ‘lobby’ because they don’t have to and the notion of a ‘health sector’ is very much relative at this point

@2 A quick look at They Work For You shows a recently increased interest in the NHS, in the past her interests were broader. However she was strongly against foundation hospitals. (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/diane_abbott/hackney_north_and_stoke_newington)

I’d say she looks like she’s doing the right thing for the right reasons.

@1 – absolutely. But is the political system in this country more corrupt, or just more laughable as a result of the coalition’s efforts?

I think it should be absolutely forbidden for a lobbyist (or their spouse) to become an elected representative, or the reverse.

“Declaring interests” is frankly bollox – it’s like relying on the honesty and innate goodness of MPs (*guffaw*) to accurately represent their expenses.

There are precedents relating to the business interests of minister’s wives:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1327061/Vaz-faces-questions-over-visa-advice-he-ignored.html

I think that the word you are searching for is : ( CORRUPTION ).

[2] “Yes, A&E, there’s irony there in terms of the party but not necessarily in the case of the MP” – I am not taking DA to task over her voting record [see 5] rather the general tenor of this highly disingenuous piece.

Before I start taking seriously anything said on health by a member of Blair’s former government, it will have to be preceded by an admission of their (as in the party’s) culpability in laying such robust foundations for the privatisation of OUR health service.

After all, this is a project that has been fermenting many years while in comparison the avarice of Mrs L seems neither here perhaps other than to provide an opportunity for a bit of gratuitous moral indignation?

Anybody who is genuinely interested in these matters should read John Lister’s corruscating response to a letter that may have been generated by tory central office – here is a little taster;
“The Bill is a huge, unprecedented experiment in marketisation of a system on a scale never attempted before anywhere in the world.
The King’s Fund, the NHS Confederation and the Commons Public Accounts Committee have among many others warned of the potential hidden costs of the Bill and the dangers in terms of loss of control of health spending in a time of massive financial constraint.
You obviously know that the proposals in Lansley’s Bill were very deliberately NOT put to the test of the electorate in May 2010. They were in neither Tory nor Liberal Democrat manifestoes. Only now are they being forced through, with no mandate, by the coalition – despite the fact that one party in the coalition is now strongly arguing that key proposals are mistaken and must be dropped through amendments to the Bill”.
http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/more-tory-nhs-myths/

This is where we are today, but the road to health privatisation would have been a thousand times harder if wasn’t for the diligent work already carried out by Tony’s apparatchiks?

This site seems to get more Victorian every day. First we had the campaign to prevent women owning property in their own name, and now we seem to have a campaign to prevent them having jobs at all.

This is as much a red herring as people who claim that it is inappropriate for the Speaker’s wife to be a Labour activist.

I absolutely despise state corporatism but I’m afraid you’re going to have to work a bit harder if you want this particular mud to stick.

Very weak.

@ 10

Well the heyday of socialist theorizing was the Victorian era, so what do you expect?

Before I start taking seriously anything said on health by a member of Blair’s former government

Before we start taking your comments seriously you’d have to state things that are factually correct. She was not part of the govt under Blair. Get a grip.

[13] DA was elected in ’87 and was member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee between 1997 – 2001 – now I might be wrong but I’m sure a certain Tony B was PM from ’97 onwards so if she wasn’t a member of government what on earth was she doing at parliament for all those years?

Anyway, the aftermath of Blairism permeated NuLab thinking long after he stood down as the main man, in fact isn’t one of Ed’s key challenges to put as much distance as he can between Tony’s, er ‘Journey’ and what some on the left might regard as a return to socialist principles?

The project of privatising the NHS (by stealth) has been at the heart of NuLab policy for some time – at what point did DA alert the voters to this alarming fact, and how can she complain (with a straight face) about the encroachment of the private sector into the NHS when that is precisely what NuLab had been doing during the time she was an MP?

The financial dabblings of Mrs L pale into insignificance compared to what has gone on before her, so DA’s excitability on this point amounts to little more than a tedious bout of political point scoring – put another way, Mrs L had nothing like the power Tony B had to cause all manner of mischief (to the NHS) without ever having the integrity to openly state what his long term game plan was.

@7

The modern maestro of the marital conflict-of-interest was in fact Ernest Marples.

BTW Diane, please feel free to rebut the substantive points if you think this analysis of NuLab’s record (on covert health privatisation) is wrong?

Irrespective of your exact role in Tony’s army you still must have had some inkling what was being done to the structure of the NHS and more importantly had some degree of insight into the philosophy driving these market based changes – mind you, it seems some of the commentators here think your job existed in a political vacuum, and that humble MP’s should not be held culpable for the crimes of their masters?

DA was elected in ’87 and was member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee between 1997 – 2001 – now I might be wrong but I’m sure a certain Tony B was PM from ’97 onwards so if she wasn’t a member of government what on earth was she doing at parliament for all those years?

Government =/= parliament. DA was a backbencher all the way through the Blair and Brown years, a position she richly deserved. It took the great Ed Miliband to give her a position of responsibility in the party.

So to read the OP, Ms Abbot has no evidence of any conflicts of interest, presents evidence that Ms Low specifically avoids matters concerning her husband’s department and has to assume conversation means lobbying (it may do – but you need evidence to make things like that stick).

And the best bit is “This ‘disproportionate cost’ line is the usual excuse ministers give when they just do not want to answer the question.” Actually, it is the excuse bureaucrats give when they see a huge task ahead of them with no worthwhile (in their view) outcome – it is a standard phrase in Freedom of Information requests for example. Yes, it might possibly be an excuse, but does Ms Abbot have any idea how difficult checking over the meetings of every employee of the Department of Health (she simply asked representative in her question…) would be.

This is attempting to make a scandal when all the evidence suggests propriety is the order of the day. Now by all means campaign against private interests interfering in government, but don’t try to make up stories where none exist.

So the answer to the title Andrew Lansley and his wife: a conflict of interest? appears to be, from Ms Abbot’s own evidence, not really, since appropriate measures seems to be in place and no evidence exists. Still, nice of you to ask…

And, of course, the Lansley’s NEVER talk shop at home. Do they?

[19] so the coalition’s health policy is being driven by pillow talk? – surely “Liberating the NHS” is the logical endpoint for ALL those politicos (of all hues) who believe greater involvement of the private sector will deliver better health outcomes?

First they came for the laundries (outsourced).
Then they came for the surgeons (ISTC).
Then the hospitals (PFIs/Foundation Trusts)
Now they even want red gold
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/05/stop-the-government-privatising-blood-donations/

And all because of Mrs L?

No more lectures from tory trolls about Labour being owned by the Unions please.

Not while tory ministers fuck up the health system for the benefit of their own families. Just more welfare for tories and rich people. Socialism for the rich.