“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which”.

THIS

Labour MP’s had their chance when Tony was busy pissing on our backs – predictably they acquiesced as the road to privatisation was gradually being laid.

Why aren’t we hearing the same thing about Labour peers? Is it because the labour working peers are all Blair’s chums who couldn’t care less?

No, it’s because Labour doesn’t believe this piece of shit can be amended into something acceptable, and isn’t engaged in some kind of party morale-building exercise by appearing to reduce the insanity a little. Why isn’t there a bullet list of Labour objections? Because Labour thinks the only solution is to nuke the entire thing from orbit. I’d much rather that than someone who ennumerates their serious concerns before doing fuck all.

as our Twitter conversation has established, we prefer to be referred to as the Social Liberal Forum (given that this is our group’s name it seems reasonable), and just to clarify, it isn’t so much Dr. Evan Harris’ group so much as he’s a leading activist within a growing organisation chaired by Dr. David Hall-Matthews and with an extensive elected Council (of which I’m a member).

@CSClark – many Labour MPs may well want the Bill nuked in public but it’s unlikely that this is out of any objection to its detail, given it’s largely an extension of their own policies pursued in 13 years of government. The pro-market, pro-choice theme of the Lansley reforms could just as easily have stemmed from pretty much any Labour Health Secretary – not to mention that the majority at the 3rd Reading – notwithstanding the 10 Lib Dem abstentions and four votes against – was 65, greater than the number of Lib Dem MPs. So, pray tell, who from the Labour benches wanted this Bill to pass…?!

“Labour is the party of the NHS. But if Labour does not raise its game on opposing the Health and Social Care Bill it will lose this title; or worse, it may get the name of the party who failed to raise a finger to protect the NHS.”

Labour is not the party of the NHS any longer. This bill so far is merely an extension of the changes made in 2002 and 2006, and thanks to the Lib Dem intervention so far has also helped steer away from some of the more dubious anti-nhs practices Labour themselves set up. They’re probably not kicking up too much of a stink because actually it’s not a million miles away from what they wanted to do with the NHS, so they’ll stick to the more comfortable action of merely damning everything the government does as is the right of the party in opposition…regardless of how similar their stances are.

Labour could be re-elected at the next election on a huge majority if it exposed Lansley’s Bill and then campaigned against it.

Yes, if people forget entirely what Labour did do the NHS while in power, and what they proposed to do had they been re-elected.

See also Labour could be re-elected at the next election on a huge majority if it brought the economy under control, supported free speech and civil liberties, abolished tuition fees, withdrew British from abroad, etc

57 Lib Dem MPs. Four rebels, ten cowards and one, I believe, who voted for and against to show… something. And you want to accuse others of lack of faith? Maybe if one of the promised Lib Dem rebellions actually turns up we can argue about the numbers.

@CSClark – Stephen Gilbert MP walked through both lobbies to indicate that he was abstaining and not just recorded as absent – a standard procedure I understand.

Avoiding the issue of Labour’s complicity in these reforms is all very well, but I doubt very much it’ll serve you well in the long run.

At least Ed is on record as saying the bill should be junked – but maybe for the sort of reasons commentators have highlighted above Labour’s campaign against NHS reform (in it’s current guise) has been both low key and ineffective.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2011/apr/13/nhs-reforms-cameron-miliband-video

Here they are: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2011-09-07b.492.0

Which labour are you talking about Newer labour or Newer, Newer labour.

They do not mind the private sector

Great post, and well done to the Social Liberal Forum for attempting to be an effective opposition in the absence of anything resembling opposition from the Labour party. Next step for you SLF guys has to be to take Nick Clegg down, force an election and go to the country as the people who stopped the “ConDems”. You’d probably win a majority for the new Lib Dem leader. So GO FOR IT – you will have my vote if you can pull it off!

You’re still suffering from the delusion that we live in a democracy. Once you rid yourself of this assumption, the world makes much more sense.

The NHS has provided us with an decent level of healthcare for decades, at a much lower cost than other developed countries (see OECD ‘quick glance’ for the most recent comparisons). Current spending @ around 8.5% compares with 17% in the US – and yet the current proposals move us steadily towards an insurance-based co-payment system, with GP consortia managed by health insurance companies with a foot in both commissioning and provisioning camps, being able to implement charges and re-define what constitutes ‘NHS’ treatment – with employment conditions and the distribution of profits being at their discretion. Meanwhile, the cap on private beds in trust hospitals is to be lifted – giving an added incentive if not an imperative to increase private treatments at the expense of longer NHS waiting lists – which in turn forces those who can to ‘choose’ the private sector.

So you just have to ask whose interests these changes serve? Certainly not the average patient, who will be paying more for less, nor those with pre-existing or chronic conditions, who can be rejected by GP consortia and left to the mercies of a cash-strapped local authority.

Those who benefit most will be the wealthy, who no longer have to subsidise the rest (and who happen to own, manage and edit our media outlets), politicians from both parties who have taken sinecures on the boards of the corporations who will be the biggest winners, and of course the private health companies currently lobbying the EU to rule state-run healthcare ‘anti-competitive’ – allowing them to take over the most profitable areas of healthcare and leave the more complex and costly procedures to an underfunded ‘NHS’ rump.

The fact that Labour drew more privatisation into our public services is of little use to anyone wanting opposition to this bill. Labour should be raising OUR OBJECTIONS to the Health and Social Care Bill. Most people do not want the NHS changed in this way, the coalition have absolutely no mandate from the people to do so. This is a totally illegitimate and undemocratic new law. NO party went to the electorate saying they would do this to the NHS and they know full well that a party who had done so would have been trashed at the polls. Labour – we want our NHS. You are the OFFICIAL OPPOSITION. RAISE YOUR GAME!

@6 – Really? I don’t see the NHS’s core principles having been abolished before. It’s something which only happens once, by it’s nature.

It seems the NHS handed out too many free lobotomies.

I agree – the Labour response has been too restrained. It’s such an easy target – they should be making much more capital out of it.

Labour supports the NHS bill because the current plans are following on from their previous ruinious plans to undermine the health service. It’s a tragedy that none of any of the mainstream parties will come out in support of a wholly publicly-funded service.

16. It’s core principles aren’t being abandoned now either, this may be another reason Labour aren’t taking this particular line of attack too vocally, because it’s also not the truth.

@19 – So you’re saying that the Labour core values since ’79 have changed such they don’t support the NHS in it’s current form? Well, quite possibly.

If you mean the NHS’s core values…then you’re deluding yourself and trying to spread that delusion. Keep away, keep away!

[19] “it’s core principles aren’t being abandoned” – then you have failed to grasp the intentionality of this bill.

Some regard Allyson Pollock (author of NHS PLC) as one of the leading authorities when it comes to analysis of health apolitics – look at this;
http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2011/09/interview-allyson-pollock-author-of-nhs-plc/

Pollock is yet another heavyweight warning that the Bill heralds the end of the NHS’s founding principles.
BTW, I notice you still seem unable to identify a single person (with any credibility) who supports Lansley’s proposals …….. outside of the corporate health giants, and yourself?

[19] what worries me is that if usually astute political observers like you have bought into Lansley’s vision I guess we have to accept such ignorance is probably mirrored in the general population, and is possibly widespread.

Look at this open letter to the Royal College Presidents regarding the
Health and Social Care Bill – “The Health and Social Care Bill builds on the market based policies of previous Governments, and poses an enormous threat to the NHS, medical professionalism, the doctor patient relationship, and ultimately patient care. It will put an end to the English NHS as a publicly funded, publicly provided, publicly accountable health service, which has served us so well for over 60 years and continues to do so. These reforms are not just another episodic
tinkering with the NHS, because independent expert legal opinion indicates that they will increase the likelihood of EU competition law being applied, which will effectively result in irreversible market based changes to the NHS.
http://www.nhsca.org.uk/docs/nhscarcp.pdf

I can’t help thinking that Labour’s muted opposition is attributable to the fact their health policy is largely indistinguishable from that of the coalition’s?

“Some regard Allyson Pollock (author of NHS PLC) as one of the leading authorities when it comes to analysis of health apolitics”

Based on that article, they shouldn’t.

“If you mean the NHS’s core values…then you’re deluding yourself and trying to spread that delusion. Keep away, keep away!”

The core principles, as far as I’m aware, are these:

that it meet the needs of everyone – This bill still does this
that it be free at the point of delivery – This bill still does this
that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay – This bill still does this

[23] now you are resorting to pantomime – “oh yes it is”, “oh no it isn’t” – you keep blithely assuming the bill is not a threat to the NHS’s founding principles – yet just everybody else worth their salt says the complete opposite (including respected figures like Pollock).

A number of sources have been supplied highlighting why this legislation is so dangerous – yet you continue with baseless contrarianism (which barely rises above the standard of “oh no it isn’t”).
Dismissing each source without any meaningful counter argument – what does that say about your level of insight into this matter?

For the third or fourth time now – who else can you cite who is cheering as loudly as you about Lansley’s bill ………. after all, I’m only asking for one name?