It’s not the Left that believes in Magic Money Trees. It’s the Right.


(it’s not satire – it’s the surreal world of banking)

Very often some people on the Right who are less intelligent – or to be more charitable less well-informed – say the reason many on the Left are against the government’s austerity measures is because they believe money grows on ‘Magic Money Trees’.

This accusation stems from the completely mistaken belief that there is only so much real money in the system – in the form of real banknotes and coins – and only hard-headed right-wingers like George Osborne understand there are no Magic Money Trees ready to produce more money to pay off the country’s debts and reduce the deficit.

But actually, it’s the Right who believe in Magic Money Trees.

Government supporters believe our NHS and public services should be cut just so we can pay non-existent money back into a banking system which really does grow fictional money from its numerous branches. Just like Magic Money Trees in fact.

The particular Magic Money Trees we’re talking about here are the ones that make up the enchanted fairy tale forest known as Fractional Reserve Banking – a system in which banks can lend money they don’t possess by creating it out of thin air – and the whole of the World’s financial system relies on it.

The eyes of those “less well-informed” people on the Right are probably already glazing over. Reality is much too complicated for them to understand. They presumably believe that when you sign a mortgage agreement with a bank, the banker goes and opens a vault full of cash and puts real pounds and coins into your bank account.

What actually happens is that the banker clicks a button on a computer screen which activates a direct line to the Magic Money Tree whose roots pass under every single branch of every bank and financial institution in the country – and the Magic Money Tree dutifully produces non-existent money which goes into your bank account.

For a really entertaining and easy explanation of how banks create money from nothing – have a look at this animation:

The Goldsmiths Tale

Most intelligent people on the Left understand all this and the reason most of them are against government austerity is because they also understand that a lot of the government’s cuts are being made in order to pay non-existent money to Magic Money Trees worshipped by governments the world over – in other words financial institutions like banks.

You see, when Barclays or Goldman Sachs executives pay themselves billions in bonuses every year, they don’t carry wheelbarrows full of cash around to their own houses and dump it in their garages alongside the Porsche and the Lamborghini.

They press another little button on their computers with a direct line to the Magic Money Tree and more non-existent money appears in their bank accounts – fictional money which nevertheless they can still use to buy their real yachts and islands and bottles of Bollinger.

So why are so many governments cutting public services to pay money – which doesn’t even exist – to Magic Money Trees?

Because it fulfils a political agenda – not a financial one. The political agenda of austerity is to reduce the welfare state, not to reduce the deficit or pay off national debt.

The UK should do what Iceland did when told to introduce austerity to keep the Magic Money Trees happy.

They told them to f*** off:

Iceland president: Let banks go bankrupt


For more information about the Great Banking Con, see these links here:

The Goldsmith’s Tale – (full version)

Where does money comes from? … the Bears explain

The market has a name: It is Goldman Sachs

Stephen Hester, Fred Goodwin, Bernie Madoff and the fraud at the heart of our banking system



BBC executives deny claims of NHS abuse by government ministers were open secret



Two former senior BBC TV executives have denied claims that news of top government ministers abusing public sector workers such as police officers and NHS staff as well as hospital patients were regularly covered up and an open secret at the corporation.

Peter Rippon, a BBC entertainment executive in charge of BBC News and Newsnight, said he never received any complaint or warning about cabinet members sickening behaviour towards the disabled and helpless patients who are too sick or ill to defend themselves.

Nick Robinson, the BBC1′s political correspondent, also told the Guardian he had never heard of any rumours or complaints by the disabled that they were regularly being abused by a perverted ring of Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs who are accused of taking away any means of support so they can then take sick pleasure in watching them starve.

Mr Robinson claimed he had never even met any politicians during his period at the BBC as he was too busy making up stories to protect the government from criticism.

Rippon, the BBC’s head of TV political variety before he became head of light westminister entertainment, told the Guardian:

There is so much talk about rumours, but I can tell you that neither from external sources or internally, neither by nods and winks or by innuendo, did I receive any scintilla whatsoever that the NHS and the disabled were being abused in this way by government ministers. In fact I can categorically state that until a few days ago, I had never even heard of the NHS. Is that where poor people go to get cured?


Related articles:

BBC executives deny claims of NHS abuse by government ministers were open secret

The Puppeteers at the BBC : (More Dishonesty, Disharmony and Broken Strings from the BBC)

Professor Aeron Davis speaks the facts you don’t hear on the BBC about the NHS Privatisation

Jobseekers Fight For Workfare Placements in NHS Hospital After Cameron Announces Vasectomy Operation There

NHS cancer research is being privatised. In case anyone’s interested.

Doctors – many LibDems suffering from Electile Dysfunction & fear of impotence

Virgin Trains Set To Improve Surrey Health Services With Standing Room Only & Exorbitant Prices

Toby Young – disabled children should be excluded from schools


(This is not satire – it’s Toby Young)

Toby Young, writing in The Spectator, thinks disabled children should be excluded from schools.

No – I’m not exaggerating – he really does say that wheelchair ramps in schools are an example of ‘ghastly, politically correct’ inclusiveness.

Sun columnist Toby presumably reckons that educating children who can’t walk would mean more ‘dumbing down’ of the level of education in our schools, so much better to exclude them then.

As opposed, presumably, to allowing more ‘dumbing down’ of the level of education by accepting children of the rich and influential who fail their exams into exclusive universities? (bear with me for a moment and I’ll explain what I mean by that).

This nonsense about excluding children with disabilities is particularly interesting if you consider the little known fact that it was Toby’s father, Michael Young, who coined the phrase ‘meritocracy‘ – you know the seemingly radical idea that people’s position in society should be based on merit rather than on what family they were born into or what school they went to.

His father, a Labour peer, must be turning in his grave.

Still – Toby likes to boast about how he is a perfect example of how anyone can succeed because he still managed to get a place at Oxford despite failing most of his O’ Levels.

He managed to do this because apparently Brasenose College, Oxford sent him a letter of acceptance ‘by mistake’ (No – I’m not making any of this up).

Of course Toby, you were accepted into Oxford ‘by mistake’.

It had nothing to do with the fact your father was MP and life peer, Baron Young, and your mother a well-known artist, writer and BBC Radio producer.

No – it was just a mistake – the kind of ‘mistakes’ which only seem to affect the children of the rich, the influential or the well-known.

Toby – I’d like to explain to you why excluding disabled children who use wheelchairs from schools is not one of your best ideas, by making a technical point about biology – clearly one of the O’ Level subjects you must have failed.

People don’t think with their f***ing legs you bonehead.


After Toby Young’s infantile idiocy, why not refresh your brain with some much needed common sense with this article by Pam Field on the important subject of inclusion and exclusion in education:

Integration or Inclusion


This article was originally posted on Pride’s Purge.

What does Leveson tell us about the Tories and their plan to wipe out state services?


At first, they ignore an inconvenient truth.  Then they ridicule it.  Then they attack it … and finally the omnishambles of the Tory-LD government has become self-evident.

 Nevertheless, this government is very successfully dismantling the NHS, state education and what remains of the post-war consensus for the profitable benefit of the transnational corporations, the financial sector (in other words themselves, their friends and relatives); a fact still largely ignored by the mainstream media. This raises a number of important questions about the nature of our democracy.  The Leveson inquiry sheds  significant light on government’s interaction with a transnational corporation like News International, and corporate expectations of government.

Tories plan to wipe out state services

A leading Cabinet minister has admitted that the Conservatives aim to eradicate the state provision of public services in this country. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister and a former banker, in an extraordinary gung-ho speech to Policy Exchange to mark 10 years of the centre-right think tank, said the Government wants to end state provision – even if it means they end up being run by private equity companies from tax havens….The speech comes as David Cameron’s Government is embarking on a controversial programme to extend privatisation way beyond Margaret Thatcher’s wildest dreams – to Britain’s road network and even the police. (1)

 Noun 1.   confidence trick – a swindle in which you cheat at gambling or persuade a person to buy worthless property   bunco, bunco game, bunko, bunko game, con game, confidence game, flimflam, gyp, hustle, con, sting

sting operation – a complicated confidence game planned and executed with great care (especially an operation implemented by undercover agents to apprehend criminals)  swindle, cheat, rig – the act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme; “that book is a fraud”


That David Cameron and George Osborne are ‘arrogant posh boys’ who know very little about economics or seemingly anything else much, has been patently obvious, from the beginning. As Martin Rowson wrote at the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review:

‘… we need to understand various things about George Osborne, this Government’s economic vandal-in-chief. First, he’s almost a victim of his own ambition…. Second, he’s actually a bit of wimp… If you combine these two aspects of his character, Osborne suddenly becomes both more and less terrifying. He’s less terrifying because it’s just an act, the calculated malevolence purely there to cow the rest of us into compliance with his programme of Thatcherite orthodoxy. However, where he becomes more terrifying is when you realise that … he really and truly doesn’t know what he’s doing … There is, in other words, a stench of deranged naivety surrounding George Osborne, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, and I fear we might be hearing the phrase “I wasn’t expecting this kind of thing” quite a lot in the next few years, as they survey the wreckage.’ (2)

Versions of this view can now be heard repeated across the political spectrum, and from the far right end, Peter Hitchins complains:

All the pillars of the Cameron delusion have now collapsed. The Tory Party cannot win a majority by any method. Nobody trusts it, and  it stands for nothing except  getting posh boys into office… 
[Mr Cameron] is exactly what he looks like, an unprincipled chancer with limited skills in public relations…. 

George Osborne is not an iron Chancellor with a severe plan to save the economy…. he’s not very good at his job. (3)

Michael Meacher on George Osborne: This man has the touch of genius if the Tory aim is now, as it seems, to lose the next election. (4)

But to be fair, it is not only Cameron and Osborne who have created the shambles of the last six weeks. Other members of the cabinet have contributed their mite, including Frances Maude and his cack-handed attempts to create antagonism to the Fuel tanker drivers and the unions; Theresa May’s inability to get the date right and the chaos at Heathrow; Caroline Spelman’s ridiculous water standpipes; Baroness Warsi comparing UKIP to the BNP; and now the U-turn on a U-turn about the new fighter aircraft.  More seriously in the last two years, we have had the Liam Fox affair; Gove’s multiple apologies to Parliament over the School Building programme; Hague’s inability to organize a boat to evacuate from Libya, the Tory fundraiser and now the emerging evidence of the Levenson inquiry.  In fact, it is quite difficult to know who from the present cabinet could possibly replace Cameron… they have all ‘messed up’.

However, all of this incompetence poses a conundrum.

How can it be that these shambolic, careless, arrogant individuals were able to supervise, let alone devise the immense sophistication of the Health and Social Care bill, the Welfare Reform bill and the Education bill? Not only are these bills profoundly (deliberately?) complicated but they are also deviously tailored to facilitate the ongoing privatization of public services… often by wrecking the state provision thus encouraging take-up of personal private insurance.  In addition, there has been accompanying legislation such as, the not much discussed ‘Henry VIII’ powers to abolish the quangos, and the Legal Aid bill which together will largely prevent any sort of challenge through the courts.

There has also been a highly synchronized time-table orchestrating the passage of these major bits of legislation, getting them swiftly in place, before the first cuts in the benefits system began to be implemented. Arguably, the intention was to get them onto statute well before the public or MPs have had a chance to fully digest their implications.

Additionally, ‘distractions’ have often been choreographed to coincide with contentious legislation.  For example the proposal to sell off the forests, which was bound to cause an outcry, coincided with the first reading of Lansley’s Health and Social Care bill.  This announcement was in itself unnecessary because the Public Bodies bill, which was designed to allow the minister to sell as much of the forests as she liked without any recourse to Parliament, was simultaneously going through the House of Lords.

Presumably, it is this ruthlessly efficient programme, aimed at selling-off what remains of state services, that caused George Osborne to be hailed as a great strategist.. (along with his three dimensional strategy chessboard). However, following his disastrously misjudged budget, few think that Osborne is a brilliant strategist anymore.

The question must be asked, therefore, to what extent is it plausible that Lansley, Gove or IDS were the primary movers in devising their respective bills?  Do we really believe that Oliver Letwin, the dumper of official mail in a public park waste-bin, was the brains co-ordinating the strategy?  It is also clear that civil servants can have had a very limited input given that the bills were up and running so quickly after the general election.

It seems so much more probable that the global management consultants, such as KPMG and McKinsey, and the transnational corporations, were simply allowed free-rein to write the legislation to suit their needs … with no apparent safeguards to secure and protect the best interests of UK* citizens from vested interests.

In this scenario, government ministers would then simply be the front-men, the PR…  which would fit with why, when criticized, the Coalition ministers peculiarly focus on the inadequacy of the way that a policy was presented.  As Douglas Alexander said:

George Osborne is apologising for spin of the budget, when he should be apologising for the substance.

The incestuous relationships between politicians, civil servants, think tanks, lobbyists, donors and corporate advisors have been discussed widely outside of the mainstream media … and also in a number of previous Think Left articles including: Welfare Reform and the US Insurance Giant Unum (5);  Lobbyists are destroying the democratic process. (6);  Transnational Corporations have not let a good crisis go to waste. (7)

The Leveson inquiry gives another level of authority to the supposition that:

‘Britain’s political class in particular and ruling class in general collude, connive and corrupt both systemically and systematically…. The evidence has laid bare the intimate, extensive and insidious web of social, familial and personal ties between the political, corporate and legal forces that govern a country: a patchwork of individual and institutional associations so tightly interwoven that to pick at one part is to watch the whole thing unravel.’ (8)

Furthermore, Gary Young writes:

… these interactions mock the very notion of democracy on which the nation’s illusions are based…. With the culture secretary described by Murdoch’s lobbyist as a “cheerleader” for News International, it seems as if the takeover was to all intents and purposes a done deal, prevented only by the fallout from the hacking scandal. All the kinks ironed out on horseback and settled in time for the main course. Parliament would have been a mere rubber stamp. Oversight reduced to an afterthought in a House of Commons…. (8)

Again as a result of Leveson, Anthony Barnett identifies a highly significant aspect about the nature of this Tory-LD government:

The scandal has now clarified a far more breathtaking question: is Britain governed by a big lie?

Of course there was not a “deal” in the narrow sense of a written contract…. It was a partnership … between people who decided to get into bed with each other and help each other obtain their interests at the expense of public life in Britain.

… no person of sound judgment could conclude anything other than that there was indeed a grand collaboration worked out before the election by the Murdochs and Cameron and Osborne and then implemented after it….

Any government whose duty is to secure and protect its citizens would necessarily seek to ensure that NewsCorp’s power is limited, checked by regulation and competition.

Today, how can Leveson pass judgment on the nature of the understandings reached by Rupert’s Rebecca when she went horse riding with David Cameron beyond the reach of judicial standards of proof? Without the clear evidence of the metaphorical ‘smoking gun’ to make a verdict of a conspiracy against the public interest simply unavoidable, it becomes his judgment-call to force the Prime Minister and Chancellor from office, for selling out the country with their utterly inappropriate relationships with team Murdoch. It is a power he’ll naturally resile from using….

But the bigger issue remains… It is one thing to kow-tow, to cultivate, to grant some concessions to (to seek not to make an enemy of) a man who controls 40 per cent of the press. This may be revolting but it is – or was – political reality in Britain. It is quite another to agree to reshape the all-important media environment of our democracy for the advantage of a player whose coverage is not only notorious for bias and the dishonourable destruction of people’s lives but who is also known to bribe the police and break the law.

This was the Rubicon that Cameron and Osborne plotted with Murdoch and Son to cross. While the Murdochs may be confounded, their agents remain in place in 10 and 11 Downing Street. They have shown themselves as people not fit and proper to run a government. (9)

So if we extrapolate from the Murdoch case, Barnett’s words could be re-written as:

But the bigger issue remains… It is one thing to kow-tow, to cultivate, to grant some concessions to (to seek not to make an enemy of) the transnational corporations and the financial sector. This may be revolting but it is – or was – political reality in Britain. It is quite another to agree to reshape the all-important public services of our democracy for the advantage of players whose primary concern is a ready, stream of profits which will doubtless end up untaxed in some offshore secrecy jurisdiction.

Without the clear evidence of the metaphorical ‘smoking gun’ to make a verdict of a conspiracy against the public interest simply unavoidable, it becomes a judgment-call to force the Prime Minister and Chancellor from office, for selling out the country with their utterly inappropriate relationships with private health providers, private employment insurers, global management consultants, private education providers and so on

Richard Murphy makes the point that the corrosiveness of offshore tax havens stems from ‘a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy’ (10). But at the very point that, the ‘imperative of shattering secrecy’ by transparency and country to country reporting, is beginning to be taken seriously and internationally, the Tory-LD government is making our own public services secret, unavailable to public scrutiny, by claiming commercial sensitivity.

As George Monbiot argues:

Private companies now provide services we are in no position to refuse, yet, unlike the state bodies they replace, they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act…

Companies are once again striking remarkable deals, hatched in secret, at the expense of taxpayers, pupils and patients. Last week, for example, we learned that Circle Healthcare will be able to extract millions of pounds a year from a public hospital, Hinchingbrooke, which is in deep financial trouble. Crucial information about the deal remains secret on the grounds of Circle’s “commercial confidentiality”.

… If we are to reclaim power from the corporations that have seized it, first we need to know what that power looks like. (11)

This raises fundamental questions about the nature and power of government.

Shouldn’t there be a responsibility on political parties to spell out their intentions before they are elected?

Shouldn’t there be transparency about the authors and genesis of legislation?

Shouldn’t there be a capacity to challenge governments who have misled the electorate prior to election?  For example ‘No top down re-organisation of the NHS’ and ‘No Tuition fees’.

Shouldn’t there be a legal duty on governments to secure and protect the best interests of their citizens?

Doubtless this list is not exhaustive but the point is, that without this sort of transparency and accountability, in what way can any UK government be said to be democratically elected?  What protection is there for the electorate from a sanctioned coup d’etat?

As Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS, said: “Far from being done by mutual consent, the Government’s plans rest on imposing unpopular ideas on an unwilling workforce.” (1)  At the same time, Professor Prem Sikka reports that Britain’s rate of wealth transference from employees and the state to corporations is unmatched in any developed country. (12)

It seems that this government of the Tory-LDs are intent on transforming the UK* into that which James Galbraith identifies as a Predator State: The state as monopoly collector of taxes and corrupt distributor of the spoils to the private sector. (13)

sting operation – a complicated confidence game planned and executed with great care  swindle, cheat, rig – the act of swindling by some fraudulent scheme;

* The peoples of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are to  varying degrees protected by their own legislatures. It is the NHS and public services of the English which are currently the primary targets.

Dedicated to Phil C., a greatly respected commentator on Think Left, who never did get around to writing us that promised article.  

He will be much missed – R.I.P. 10.05.12














LD Simon Hughes is ‘dissected’ over the NHS


Lib Dem Simon Hughes, when asked to justify the Health and Social Care legislation (14.04.12), found himself, not only isolated on the panel of speakers, but also facing a more than somewhat doubtful audience of medical students.

Medical Student Challenges Simon Hughes over Health and Social Care Bill

Related post by Pride’s Purge:

Controversial urine extraction method given go-ahead by government.

Pls RT Response to the Lib Dem “40 points” document #dropthebill#saveournhs


Statement by Professor Allyson Pollock, David Price and Peter Roderick in  response to the Lib Dem “40 points” document

9th March 2012

Please RT

Liberal Democrat peers have circulated a document, summarising “more than 40 key changes already secured by Liberal Democrats” to the Health and Social Care

Bill.  There is no doubt that Liberal Democrat peers have succeeded in making the Health and Social Care Bill less bad. However, the fundamental policy behind the Bill remains intact – to abolish the National Health Service – and introduce mixed financing and greater commercialisation and commercial control over the scope and allocation of government funded health care.


Legal duty of Secretary of State to provide is abolished

The legal duty of the Secretary of State to provide a National Health Service has been abolished, replaced by a political declaration and a duty on list-based clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) whose GP members are permitted to use and will have to use commercial organisations such as McKinsey and KPMG to enter into thousands of contracts on behalf of the CCGs – all subject to commercial confidentiality.


Competition chapter has not been dropped

Competition will increase, and competition rules will increasingly apply. Far from deleting the competition chapter as called for by Shirley Williams in her Guardian article on 13th February, this week Liberal Democrat peers:

· agreed to delete only three of the eleven clauses of that chapter;

· voted against their own amendment aimed at preventing competition rules from obstructing the NHS, and

· voted against an amendment to require Monitor to treat competition and collaboration equally.


Cherry picking by providers is not outlawed

Of particular concern is the statement in the “40 point” document that the Bill outlaws cherry-picking – repeating what Earl Howe said in the House of Lords this week, and what Baroness Jolly writes in her Guardian letter on 9th March. This is not only wrong, but the opposite of what the Bill says.  Clause 103 of the Bill requires all providers to decide whether and how to cherry- pick, in that they must set and apply eligibility and selection criteria. Those criteria must be transparent, and must be applied transparently. As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state, that is intended to “enable Monitor to minimise the scope for providers to make extra profits by ‘cherry picking’- i.e. delivering a service only in less complex cases – by requiring them to be transparent about their patient eligibility and selection criteria”. The government and Liberal Democrat peers are misrepresenting Clause 103: transparent eligibility criteria transparently applied is not outlawing cherry-picking, it is expressly providing the framework for it and intending openness to minimise it.

The Bill legalises fewer services for fewer people, for introducing charges for services currently free, and for excluding people


This Bill would establish the legal basis:

· for providing fewer services than those commissioned by Primary Care

Trusts (PCTs) under their duty to provide, by proposing to give local authorities only discretionary powers to commission 20 categories of services

· for providing fewer services that are currently part of the NHS, by giving the power to clinical CCGs to decide if provision is appropriate as part of the health service – namely for pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding, young children, the prevention of illness, the care of

persons suffering from illness, and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness – thus permitting commercial considerations to influence what would be regarded as appropriate as part of the health service;

· for introducing charges for services that are currently free under the NHS, including charges on individuals for public health services provided through the local authority; and

· for excluding people from health services, through secondary legislation.

The government has no mandate for this Bill from the electorate or in the coalition agreement.

Update:  A devastating deconstruction of how little, the Lib Dem amelioration, has changed the Health and Social Care bill. 


Letter to David Cameron #saveournhs #spartacus


Dear David Cameron

People believed you when you said that the NHS was safe in your hands because you spoke so gratefully about the care that your son received.  For the same reason, people believed you when you said that you understood the extra costs and difficulties of disability and long-term sickness.

I have no reason to believe other than that you loved your son but it seems that your care and concern does not extend to other people’s children with illnesses or disabilities.

Why else could you have you forced through the Welfare Reform bill which halves the support given to most disabled children?

Family Action estimates that around 100,000 families with disabled children could lose support as a result of this change.  This will include many of the very poorest families, already struggling to make ends meet whilst caring for a disabled child.


Go on to any of the disability websites and read the agonizing stories of those who are affected by the cutting of £18 billion from the benefits bill.  It is horrifying.  For example go to:

The ‘disability’ benefits were already inadequate before you and George Osborne came out with your cynical self-justification that ‘we’re all in it together’ so everyone must share the burden including the very poorest!

But even more obscenely, you know that all of this is based on one big lie.

The big lie is that you inherited a country crippled by the previous government’s overspending on public services, and that we were in danger of a sovereign debt crisis.  Will Hutton calls the suggestion ‘risible’.  This ‘lie’ has been refuted by so many serious economists, including Nobel prize winners like Stiglitz and Krugman, that you should be squirming with embarrassment every time you say it.  And no matter how many times you or your LD fellow travellors, repeat the lie, it simply does not make it any more true!

Gordon Brown did not spend all the money-The Banks did (Dr Sue Davies)

In spite of all your fine words about the NHS, you know that your real plans for the NHS under the Health and Social Care bill is to create a US style of health care .. why do you ignore the advice of people who have both personal and professional experience of the US system? … people like the Harvard academics Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein who conclude that the appropriate response to the US experience with such policies is “quarantine, not replication”. (1)


 You are steadfastly ignoring all the protests and advice, whether public or professionals.  Why?

Do not tell us this is about making the NHS more affordable and efficient.

 According to the World Health Organisation, in 2008 the United States spent 15.2% of GDP on healthcare, the highest spend per head of any country, while the UK spent 8.7%, ranking it 19th. Studies ranking quality of care and efficiency across different national health systems always list the UK system as giving better outcomes at under half the cost of the US system; they routinely find that the NHS is top or near the top on outcomes and is near unbeatable for value for money. (1)

Do not tell us that this about improved care.

In 2011, medical negligence QC John Whitting has written that he expects negligence cases to soar as a result of the roll-out of competitive commissioning. He stated that in a competitive model: “fewer doctors and fewer nurses will have to work longer shifts: in other words, the very environment in which mistakes are most likely to happen……  These proposals are patently driven by commercial imperatives rather than by consideration of patient wellbeing.” (1)

Do not tell us that this is about patient choice or making the health service more accountable.

Under competition and trade law private sector market participants have legal rights to maintain that access on equal terms with all other providers, including the public sector. Such rights are enforceable in the UK and EU courts and through World Trade Organisation arbitration.  The Bill as it stands would introduce a system creating such rights for any “qualified” for-profit provider of healthcare services, in a market of providers offered to patients as options for their health provision. (1)

As Allyson Pollock writes of the legal implications of the Health and Social Care bill:

‘An analysis of its key legal reforms demonstrates that it provides a legal basis for charging and for providing fewer health services to fewer people in England. [Read more]

Essentially, the bill will transfer the decision-making powers from the secretary of state to new clinical commissioning groups, local authorities, and commercial companies.

Under the bill, public health functions, such as vaccination, screening services and promotion of healthy lifestyles, would also be delegated to local authorities and may be chargeable.

Furthermore, the government has indicated that a wide range of services may not be mandated in future.

The reform signals the basis for a shift from a mainly tax-financed health service to one in which patients may have to pay for services currently free at point of delivery. The government has been unable to show, as it has argued, that these changes are “vital”. It does not have a mandate for this radical alteration of health care financing and it has avoided informed debate of the principle.

Read article

The truth is that all of these changes are driven by US healthcare corporations. For over 30y they have plotted how to substantially profit from the tax stream from government that goes into the welfare state. Providing those commodities that people are always going to need, such as health, education, local government services, the utilities and so on, is both secure and easy pickings.  Furthermore, the intention is to lock in these changes under WTO arbitration so that future governments will be unable to reverse this privatisation.

You have colluded with corporations and finance to ensure that we will be living in a ‘Predator State’. The very last thing that you are interested in, is to keep the NHS safe for the benefit of the people.  You are happy to be the PM of a government which is the monopoly collector of taxes and distributor of the spoils to the private sector’.

The NHS – TINA – Mrs Thatcher’s ideology and political legacy (Dr Sue Davies)

Warren Buffet was right when he said this is class war – and that your class and his are winning.

‘The competition-based reform of the NHS constitutes a reckless and dangerous gamble with the NHS, and with the health of this nation. The Bill is a chaotic muddle, based on a model that the evidence shows to be more expensive than the current system while producing inferior outcomes. It should be dropped.’ (1)

Yours sincerely