Jump to content

Lansley Heckled


SuperMikey
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17093082

 

Andrew Lansley was heckled this morning by protesters when he was on his way to a meeting with David Cameron about the NHS.

 

While it was the usual bunch of nutjobs there, one particular protestor had a huge rant at Lansley in a Python-esque shrill timbre, it's absolutely brilliant viewing and the best laugh i've had in ages!

 

Watch the video in the link above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing this, Super Michael. This comes on the day in which the Conservatives have arranged a meeting with the big movers and shakers of the NHS.

 

The only precondition?

 

That anyone turning up must be in complete and total agreement with the Government's p*ss-poor plan for the top-down reorganisation of the NHS.

 

The upside is that they'll have very small conference room requirements. Good to know in these cash-strapped times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17093082

 

Andrew Lansley was heckled this morning by protesters when he was on his way to a meeting with David Cameron about the NHS.

 

While it was the usual bunch of nutjobs there, one particular protestor had a huge rant at Lansley in a Python-esque shrill timbre, it's absolutely brilliant viewing and the best laugh i've had in ages!

 

Watch the video in the link above.

 

Question for you Mikey - why do you automatically assume that anybody who turns up to protest at government actions is a 'nutjob'?

 

And, in fact, what exactly is a nutjob?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for you Mikey - why do you automatically assume that anybody who turns up to protest at government actions is a 'nutjob'?

 

And, in fact, what exactly is a nutjob?

 

I don't assume that everyone that turns up at a protest such as the one this morning is a nutjob, but it does generally seem to be the case in this country. Radical action against the government often attracts the most radical of people. I've been on protests before, and I know many people who have been on protests also. Often the hardcore element of government protesters are slightly...unhinged.

 

It's not a slight against these people, because they're raising awareness of a plan which has been slammed by those who actually know about the medical profession and what it requires (unlike our Minister of Health) and they're doing a good job. My point is that those who are attracted to radical action (radical being going out and physically doing something unlike most people who silently disagree with the plans but ultimately accept them through inaction) are often of a radical nature themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't assume that everyone that turns up at a protest such as the one this morning is a nutjob, but it does generally seem to be the case in this country. Radical action against the government often attracts the most radical of people. I've been on protests before, and I know many people who have been on protests also. Often the hardcore element of government protesters are slightly...unhinged.

 

I've been on demos myself. While I'd agree with some of this, a couple of qualifications, if I may.

 

First, most demos I've ever been on have been massively peaceful. Lot of people walking through London and shouting slogans.

 

That's actually pretty boring for telly cameras, so they end up focusing their attention on the few greebos having a tussle with the OB.

 

No doubt that some of the demonstrators are right off the charts when it comes to their place on the political spectrum, but most of them are normal people with a genuine grievance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on demos myself. While I'd agree with some of this, a couple of qualifications, if I may.

 

First, most demos I've ever been on have been massively peaceful. Lot of people walking through London and shouting slogans.

 

That's actually pretty boring for telly cameras, so they end up focusing their attention on the few greebos having a tussle with the OB.

 

No doubt that some of the demonstrators are right off the charts when it comes to their place on the political spectrum, but most of them are normal people with a genuine grievance.

 

Media representation of protests and the overall vibe and atmosphere of a protest are always going to be different. The media are interested for entertainment purposes, they will try and deliver whatever is most thrilling and interesting for their viewers - which may not necessarily be an accurate representation of events that transpire. I'm not tarring all protesters with the same brush, believe me.

 

The power of protest is a great one and it's a privilege that we in this country often take for granted. Protests attract a wide variety of people across the political spectrum depending on the issue. People will be drawn into action or inaction depending on the issue at hand, which means that the demography of a certain protest will always be different to another one. There are elements at any protest who are 'hardcore' and will attend many protests spanning across a wide range of issues because that's what they like to do. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but from those who I have observed I have found them to be slightly odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1946 the BMA were oppossed to the setting up of the NHS, so Doctors aren't always the best people to decide how a country should run its health service.

 

Might not always be the best people, but they aren't even being consulted (largely because their professional opinion doesn't mirror the Govt's).

 

I'd certainly argue (perhaps even calling The Cat's evidence in as an exhibit) that a significant number of political figures stand to gain from a larger corporate component of the Health Service.

 

Personally, I worry about the ethical considerations when involving big business in the NHS, especially as it puts two requirements in conflict. Some will argue that you can make people better AND make a profit, but much of the evidence from over the pond suggests that big medical and big pharma are more interested in managing conditions than finding an outright resolution to people's health issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go again. Quoting inconvenient truths on a footie forum. ...

 

Is it really that inconvenient though?

 

First, anyone with a brain will recognise that you can't use 1946 as a model for what we do in 2012. Second, the type of change that was being made then was far more profound than what is being suggested here.

 

Perhaps more inconvenient is the fact that it's not just the BMA who are opposing the Government on this. Almost every professional body has come out against the bill.

 

And if you really want to talk inconvenient truth, perhaps its worth bearing in mind that anyone who disagrees with this policy just doesn't get a say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making was that just because the BMA are against the reforms does not make them a bad thing. Had we listened to them, there would be no NHS. They argued and stood in the way of the setting up of the NHS for nearly 2 years. It wasn't until Nye Bevan "stuffed their mouths with gold" that they came onboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much all the Royal Colleges, the BMA, the Family Doctor Association... anyone who's anyone in health circles in this country, are either against this bill, calling for it's withdrawal, or outwardly critical of it.

 

Bear in mind that GP's are arguably the ones who stand to make money out of this, by taking on additional roles with local consortia groups, and taking possession of the management budgets for said CCG's, yet 98% of the respondants to the RCGP's most recent survey said they were against the bill or wanted it withdrawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making was that just because the BMA are against the reforms does not make them a bad thing. Had we listened to them, there would be no NHS. They argued and stood in the way of the setting up of the NHS for nearly 2 years. It wasn't until Nye Bevan "stuffed their mouths with gold" that they came onboard.

 

Funny that, so did the conservatives!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're harking back to history so much then I guess we should be amazed that we don't still have slavery and that kids aren't still sent up chimneys.

 

:facepalm:

 

Funny that TOO!!!......A friend in the US of mine, put a link up on the book of faces where the Republican party have suggested that a full-time job may be classed as an "education" for children as young as 12.....who says child labour in the western world is dead eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that TOO!!!......A friend in the US of mine, put a link up on the book of faces where the Republican party have suggested that a full-time job may be classed as an "education" for children as young as 12.....who says child labour in the western world is dead eh?

 

Well, conservatism is about conserving stuff.

 

That said, this is more resurrection than conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much all the Royal Colleges, the BMA, the Family Doctor Association... anyone who's anyone in health circles in this country, are either against this bill, calling for it's withdrawal, or outwardly critical of it.

 

Bear in mind that GP's are arguably the ones who stand to make money out of this, by taking on additional roles with local consortia groups, and taking possession of the management budgets for said CCG's, yet 98% of the respondants to the RCGP's most recent survey said they were against the bill or wanted it withdrawn.

 

Well said. I don't know of any GP's who are in favour of these changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BMA aren't anti Tory, they are just anti anything. They spent years attacking the Labour Government, saying their proposals were "unworkable". Listening to these medical professionals is like groundhog day.

 

So let's hear a view for the bill. You seem pretty keen. Care to oblige?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's hear a view for the bill. You seem pretty keen. Care to oblige?

 

Where have I said I am pretty keen on it. All I have pointed out is that the BMA and medical bodies tend to oppose every single thing, including the setting up of the NHS in the first place.

 

There is a complete and utter irrationality when people debate the NHS, it is the sacred cow of British politics. The truth of the matter is, it's not free. It's not even free at the point of delivery, how do I clear up my tonsillitis after seeing my "free" Doctor, I have to pay towards my cure then and there. The debate seems to be that you're either for the UK's version of the NHS or you're for the USA version. We also have the spectacle of rich politicians trying to outNHS each other." Me and my Family use the NHS", I feel like shouting at the TV, you can afford to go Private, you want to go private, but you take finance and capacity from someone who cant afford it, to prove how dedicated you are to the NHS.

 

I dont know what the answer is, I suggest an Insurance based sceme, maybe or a top up type thing, like we top up our state pension. But no matter what people say the NHS is not the envy of the world. I spend a lot of time in France and the French people dont moan that they wish their health service was like the NHS, nor I suspect do Germans or other similar Western Countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days, if politicians use private health facilites, they are doomed. According to Lord D and Trousers, they are also criticised for using public services instead of private provision (because they're taking away resources from those who can't afford private services - actually not true).

 

In any event, the NHS (and all the other public services) need politicians and other opinion makers to use the public services that the rest of us rely on in order that they can experience first hand the real situation and press hard for improvements. It's no good pontificating from ivory towers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These days, if politicians use private health facilites, they are doomed. According to Lord D and Trousers, they are also criticised for using public services instead of private provision (because they're taking away resources from those who can't afford private services - actually not true).

 

In any event, the NHS (and all the other public services) need politicians and other opinion makers to use the public services that the rest of us rely on in order that they can experience first hand the real situation and press hard for improvements. It's no good pontificating from ivory towers.

 

Do you rely believe that Cameron has to wait in the doctors waiting room with the Hoi polloi, really believe that Mrs Brown was laying in bed next to the great unwashed prior to being wheeled down to the delivery suite. My Daughter had a hospital appointment to cast her broken wrist (she had a lightweight one put on until the swelling went down), despite having an appointment she waited nearly 3 hours. Would Mrs Milliband have to wait with Ed's nearest and dearest.

 

No wonder the politicans think the NHS is the envy of the world. The NHS they use is vastly different to everyone else's. I'd be all for them using it and pressing for improvements if it took them 3 days to get a basic Doctors appointment, and then they had to see the Triage Nurse first to determine if you are ill enough to get to see the Doc.

 

I can see it now "Well Mrs Cameron Dr So and So can see you in 3 days time at 4.15pm," (5pm by the time she's waited)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where have I said I am pretty keen on it. All I have pointed out is that the BMA and medical bodies tend to oppose every single thing, including the setting up of the NHS in the first place.

 

There is a complete and utter irrationality when people debate the NHS, it is the sacred cow of British politics. The truth of the matter is, it's not free. It's not even free at the point of delivery, how do I clear up my tonsillitis after seeing my "free" Doctor, I have to pay towards my cure then and there. The debate seems to be that you're either for the UK's version of the NHS or you're for the USA version. We also have the spectacle of rich politicians trying to outNHS each other." Me and my Family use the NHS", I feel like shouting at the TV, you can afford to go Private, you want to go private, but you take finance and capacity from someone who cant afford it, to prove how dedicated you are to the NHS.

 

I dont know what the answer is, I suggest an Insurance based sceme, maybe or a top up type thing, like we top up our state pension. But no matter what people say the NHS is not the envy of the world. I spend a lot of time in France and the French people dont moan that they wish their health service was like the NHS, nor I suspect do Germans or other similar Western Countries.

 

I agree that the NHS is a political minefield given its sacred cow status, but I also think it is something that we should rightly be proud of and something we need to be very careful with. The recent Commonwealth fund seems to have been overlooked by those critical of the current performance of the NHS.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8877412/NHS-among-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world.html

 

The problem with Lansley's clusterfck is that no one is really sure what he is trying to achieve, no one seems to have any idea what exactly the NHS will look like after his reforms and no one really seems to be in real favour of it (apart from Lansley and those who have backed themselves in to a corner with their misplaced loyalty).

 

The Conservatives don't have a mandate for such a reorganisation and they appear to be going against their pre election promise of "no top down NHS reorganisation", so it's not surprising there is opposition to these ill thought out plans.

 

I think the NHS has to move with the times and it cannot be immune to the economic pressures affecting every other institution, but this reorganisation does not seem to have been well thought out and should be shelved and replaced.

 

Also not sure about using the BMAs stance 60+ years ago as a reason for not listening to them now, as it would be just as ridiculous to highlight how the Conservatives (and the likes of Mr and Mrs Docker) were so opposed to the creation of the NHS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an MP has his children on the NHS, does it come out of the NHS budget. Had they gone private would it have cost the NHS anything?

 

Who do you think carries out and pays for the training that the staff in a private hospital have undertaken?

 

Who do you suppose picks up the tab if a procedure carried out in a private hospital goes wrong? (Just think of the recent breast implant scandal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was lucky enough to sit on my local hospitals board of governors for a year, and as a volunteer at the moment I also get to watch the hospital in working closely from a practical point. And my brother's a junior doctor. So I've had quite a broad viewing of the NHS the last couple of years.

 

And these reforms are a disaster, and will lead to privatisation by the back door, due to the way hospitals are now run under the trust system. And the longer this dead bill is dragged out, the worse it is for the NHS. Staff don't know what the hell is going on at the moment and that is wasting a lot of time and resource. The NHS isn't perfect, and changes are needed, but not these changes. It's about time they go back to the drawing board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...