The butcher’s apron and the bus pass

While reflecting upon the centenary of the old age pension, it was pointed out to me by a senior citizen of my acquaintance that citizens over the age of sixty can now travel for free on England’s buses.

The English National Concessionary Travel Scheme has been welcomed by millions of pensioners and is a rare progressive policy by New Labour administration – though since pensioners are most likely to vote, it’s likely to be a cynical move.

Note that the cards feature the St George’s Cross and the red rose symbol of England:

The Labour party would be advised to drop Brown’s Britishness agenda as well as Brown himself (because he’s a useless Tory, not because he’s Scottish) – if there’s one issue the Conservative and Unionist party are weak on, it’s the position of England in the UK.

The ENCTS is a modest social-democratic policy, but it’s exactly the kind of inclusive Englishness needed to fight the fascist BNP and embarrass Cameron’s New Tories.

Government ministers are considering a windfall tax on the energy giants, with the monies going to help people struggling to pay the soaring bills – which is a pretty radical policy for Thatcherite New Labour. While they’re feeling open-minded, let’s hope they consider giving us an English parliament to go with the bus passes…

Advertisements

Making a spectacle of myself

I seem to have been interviewed by The Pakistani Spectator. It’s just as well I’m not famous, really. Some of the answers I give are terrible.

Would you please tell us something about you and your site?

Rebellion Sucks! has been going for over a year now. It’s focus is on the struggle of working people in England to improve their lives by organising and gaining political representation.

My intention is to spread socialist and anti-imeprialist ideas using blogging technology. I want to encourage working people to examine their role in society and that of the class which profits from their labour, become more conscious of the economic motive behind the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the need to bring the armed forces home from these imperialist wars.

I have made an effort to highlight the English Question – that because Britain is not a federal state, it’s largest nation lacks any form of devolved government, which has been granted to Scotland, and to a lesser extent, Wales. It is my view that the establishment of an English parliament will assist the working class in winning beneficial reforms, as has happened in Scotland and Wales, and will help the development of an inclusive national identity based upon secular civic institutions rather than exclusively on ethnicity or religious faith.

Do you feel that you continue to grow in your writing the longer you write? Why is that important to you?

I have become more reliant upon quoting other sources – why repeat badly what someone else has already said adequately?

I’m wondering what some of your memorable experiences are with blogging?

Most memorable was my part in preventing the billionaire Alisher Usmanov from censoring the writer and former diplomat Craig Murray by reproducing his article in full. the article concerned Usmanov’s past, somthing he did not want publicised as he was attempting to purchase a football team. Many other bloggers took part in this action which lead the mainstream media to report Usmanov’s alleged criminal past.

What do you do in order to keep up your communication with other bloggers?

I occasionally post comments on their blog entries – if I have something to say.

What do you think is the most exciting or most innovative use of technology in politics right now?

The social networking site Facebook is used by many activists in politics and the trade union movement to co-ordinate campaigns and publicise activities.

Do you think that these new technologies are effective in making people more responsive?

It allows more people to make their opinion known and hopefully encourages a broader debate than that allowed by the state or corporate media.

What do you think sets Your site apart from others?

The focus on both working class struggle and national self-determination.

If you could choose one characteristic you have that brought you success in life, what would it be?

Good manners.

What was the happiest and gloomiest moment of your life?

I’m not going to get personal here, so these are the political highs and lows of recent years… The gloomiest moment was being unable, along with millions of other people, to prevent my country participating in the US-led wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. The happiest was learning that the people of Ireland had rejected further military and political integration with the European Union in a referendum.

If you could pick a travel destination, anywhere in the world, with no worries about how it’s paid for – what would your top 3 choices be?

Peru, New Zealand, and China.

What is your favorite book and why?

The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, it’s nice to read a political tract that is so clear and concise.

What’s the first thing you notice about a person (whether you know them or not)?

If they listen as much as they speak.

Is there anyone from your past that once told you you couldn’t write?

No.

How bloggers can benefit from blogs financially?

I don’t know. I don’t think they should, actually. Blogging should be for fun and for free.

Is it true that who has a successful blog has an awful lot of time on their hands?

No, some people are skilled writers.

What role can bloggers of the world play to make this world more friendlier and less hostile?

Be willing to engage with those one does not agree with and debate the issues instead of using insults.

Who are your top five favourite bloggers?

Louise Whittle of Harpy Marx, Richard Seymour of Lenin’s Tomb, Stuart Parr of Wonko’s World, Andy Newman of Socialist Unity, and John McDonnell of Another World Is Possible,

Is there one observation or column or post that has gotten the most powerful reaction from people?

That Alisher Usmanov post.

What is your perception about Pakistan and its people?

That there is an ongoing struggle for popular sovereignty, national independence, and social justice.

Have you ever become stunned by the uniqueness of any blogger?

No.

What is the most striking difference between a developed country and a developing country?

Perhaps that in the so-called “developing” world there is a greater awareness of imperialism and its history,

What is the future of blogging?

More blogging.

You have also got a blogging life, how has it directly affected both your personal and professional life?

Negatively.

What are your future plans?

More blogging, I suppose.

Any Message you want to give to the readers of The Pakistani Spectator?

Please visit my blog and tell me what you think of it.

England’s asbestos scandal

Socialist Appeal reports on the latest example of a) the need for an English parliament, and b) New Labour being soft on safety crime.

The judicial House of Lords has recently ruled that pleural plaque (scarring of the lung – a condition caused by breathing in asbestos) is not an industrial illness for which compensation can be claimed. This reverses twenty years of common law practice. What do the Law Lords know about it? Asbestosis related conditions are not exactly an occupational hazard for judicial bigwigs.

Linda Walman, reporting the House of Lords decision (Guardian 17.10.2007), commented, “While industry and society have benefited from the use of asbestos, today’s ruling effectively means that the people who worked with it – mining it, installing it, using it in manufacture and, more recently, removing it – and those who lived in the vicinity of asbestos companies will continue to bear the social and physical costs. It is the workers, ordinary men and their families, who will continue to pay the price for the mining and manufacture of asbestos. Their experience – watching friends suffer, dealing with doctors and lawyers, trying to find a way in which they can support their families – confirms their deep suspicion of the medical and legal establishment.”

At first Gordon Brown promised to rush through a law reversing the decision. Now he’s decided to have a ‘review’. The Scottish Executive responded by tabling a bill to reverse the Lords’ decision. The English review falls a long way short of doing the same

Construction workers will this week target the constituencies of cabinet ministers David Miliband and John Hutton, in a campaign to force the government to rule that the insurance industry has to pay a £1.4bn compensation bill to sufferers of pleural plaque.

Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction union Ucatt, said: ‘The insurance industry seems intent on dismantling the industrial injury compensation system and it has to be fought.’

It seems the government is the prisoner of big business. How gutless can Gordon get? It appears pleural plaque is an industrial illness in Scotland, but not in England.

Why is an English parliament beyond the Tories’ Ken?

Consider the following:

Unpopular “reforms” such as Foundation Hospitals, student top-up fees, and the new undemocratic Planning Bill – have been imposed on England by the votes of Scottish Labour MPs.

If Camoron’s New Tories are really nicey-nicey, they’d want this anomaly to be resolved: it’s not very democratic is it? It’s rather nasty, in fact…

But no, not quite. Rather than simply support devolution for England (they didn’t support it for Scotland or Wales, either!) they Tories want to save their beloved Union. It’s the only union they support – though I suppose Ken and co are fans of the European Union…

So, instead of an easy-to-understand proposal for an English parliament, we have the confusing report from Ken Clarke – which might not even be adopted by the Tories as party policy, despite Camoron asking Clarke to come up with some ideas on the West Lothian Question. No, really:

For matters relating solely to England, only English MPs should vote, while English and Welsh MPs alone should vote on issues only affecting those two countries, it argues.

MPs from all countries could later vote to pass or reject the bill as a whole, the committee adds.

Mr Herbert seemed to agree in principle, saying: “Just as most of Scotland’s laws are now passed with the consent of the Scottish people, expressed through their elected representatives, so it is right to require English consent for laws affecting only England – or English and Welsh consent for laws affecting only England and Wales.”

The proposals will not necessarily become Conservative policy, although party leader David Cameron himself set up Mr Clarke’s Democracy Taskforce to come up with usable ideas.

Mr Clarke said his plan was a “compromise”, more workable than simply banning MPs from other countries from voting on England-only laws, and that this would help preserve the Union of England and Scotland.

The ideas comes amid concerns that the Scottish devolution settlement has created two classes of MP.

In Scotland, legislation on issues such as health and education are controlled by the country’s own parliament at Holyrood.

But policy for England is decided by the full Westminster parliament, with MPs from all parts of the UK able to vote.

Since some powers were devolved to the Holyrood parliament, there have been calls for just MPs with English constituencies to vote on England-only matters, or even the setting-up of a separate English parliament.

Labour MP backs calls for devolved English parliament

He’s not the first, but I get the feeling Derek Wyatt won’t be the last – especially with the growing anger at the “perverse” method of dividing public finances between the nations in the UK. Also, it’s an easy issue for New Labour MPs with English constituencies to make a stand on.

Demand ‘growing’ for English parliament
Wednesday 18th June 2008 at 12:12 AM

The United Kingdom is in a “constitutional muddle” and demand is growing for an English parliament, a Labour MP has said.

Speaking ahead of a Westminster Hall debate on parliamentary representation in England, Derek Wyatt told ePolitix.com that four lower houses of equal powers should be established in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

A new upper house of representatives should be set up with responsibility for issues such as the environment and foreign policy, the Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP said.

He said: “We’ve devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but we’ve not devolved the same powers to the one assembly and two parliaments. And by default, we have not given anything to England.

“We tried to do elected regional assemblies and they failed; now we’ve got unelected regional development agencies and we’ve still got some form of regional assembly – unelected. So the largest economic unit in Britain has no democratic representation.”

Wyatt, who is the parliamentary aide to culture minister Margaret Hodge, said that England was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Barnett formula which allocates funding across the United Kingdom.

“English people are tired really of a Barnett formula that spends more money in the [other] three countries and doesn’t give them the same rights and the same responsibilities and the same treatment,” he said.

“I think it’s time we stopped and thought about what we’re doing.”

He added that demand for an English parliament will grow within the next five years to 10 years.

“People are tired of hearing that Scotland’s got better facilities when the Barnett formula gives them more per head for education, for instance, than in Kent where I live,” he said.

And since I was so amazed at this news, I checked Derek Wyatt’s own website:

Labour MP calls for five UK parliaments: “the United Kingdom is a half-built house,” says Derek Wyatt.

In a Westminster Hall debate tomorrow morning (Wednesday June 18) Derek Wyatt MP (Labour, Sittingbourne & Sheppey) will compare the United Kingdom to a half-built house where no one lives the way they want to and everyone argues about the household bills.

Setting out proposals for wide-ranging long-term constitutional and financial reform, he will call for a replacement of the “Barnett formula” which determines public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: “arrangements set up in the 1970s for reasons no one can now remember with results no one can now understand.”

Mr Wyatt will propose a constitutional convention, representing all the parties and peoples of the United Kingdom, to agree a ten-year plan for major reform of Parliament. At the end of the period the convention would present proposals for five separate Parliamentary chambers, one for each of the nations of the United Kingdom and one for the United Kingdom as a whole. Each nation would choose the issues it wanted to handle in its own chamber – and finance its policies from its own tax revenue. Other issues would remain with the UK chamber and financed from UK-wide taxation. The final package of proposals would be put to all voters in a referendum.

He will say: “I believe that all the peoples of the United Kingdom should have the same power to shape the laws and services which shape their lives, but they should also have the same responsibility for paying for them. We cannot carry on as we are. The present constitutional and financial relationships cannot endure. They are arbitrary and opaque and they allow everyone in the United Kingdom to believe that the system is unfair to them. The resulting mutual resentments could well lead to the break-up of our country in confusion and acrimony.”

1,236,085 people sign petition opposing commercialisation of English GP services

These “reforms” (remember when that meant an improvement?) will not be imposed in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, which have devolved government, unlike England.

From today’s News Line:

Friday, 13 June 2008
DARZAI MUST RESIGN! – says the GPs conference!
FAMILY doctors yesterday expressed their furious opposition to privately-run polyclinics and voted to take ‘unprecedented action’ in response to ‘unprecedented political threats to general practice’.

GPs voted unanimously for Motion 32 at the British Medical Association (BMA) Local Medical Committees (LMCs) annual conference in central London, which supported the BMA’s ‘Support your Surgery’ campaign

In a combined debate, the over 400 delegates called for health minister Darzi to resign, voting no confidence in him as health minister, his review of general practice and no confidence in his ‘ability to carry out a review of the NHS that is independent of political control and free of a predetermined outcome’.

BMA GPs Committee Chairman Dr Laurence Buckman was applauded throughout his keynote speech attacking the ‘commercialisation of the NHS’.

He slammed PFI and polyclinics, warning: ‘The dumbing down of general practice will spell the end of the generalist who can offer holistic care.

‘It will see the rise of clinics further away from the patients they serve and providing much less of the personal care and commitment they value.’

Buckman received a standing ovation when he announced: ‘At 2 o’clock today I will be proud to knock on the door of Number 10 and hand in a petition signed by 1,236,085 people in England.

‘It will deliver a stark message to the Prime Minister that the public petitions to him continue to support our existing NHS GP surgeries and improve services to patients by further investment in them.’

He stressed: ‘Voters don’t want funding to move from GP practices to commercial companies who are accountable primarily to shareholders rather than patients.

‘They want to be treated as patients, not customers.’

Buckman received another, longer standing ovation when he concluded: ‘So, what’s it going to be government: peace and construction, or a never-ending fight to protect the NHS? I’m game for either.’

Moving Motion 32, Dr Kailash Chand, West Pennine LMC, said: ‘This government is morally bankrupt and stone deaf.

‘Our campaign must continue. The public must know.’

Warning against government ‘reforms’ plans, he added: ‘If we ignore this, we are sleepwalking into the destruction of the NHS by marketisation, privatisation and commercialisation.’

Opposing polyclinics, he stressed: ‘As GPs we have to defend the NHS.’

Advising conference, Dr Buckman said: ‘You could misunderstand unprecedented action, but I oppose a reference back.

‘We are already taking unprecedented action. It depends on what the government does – being nice to us would be unprecedented.’

Earlier, GPs voted unanimously for Motion 10 which underlined that ‘the vast majority of patients want and need’ care provided by ‘permanent, properly-trained GPs’.

It warned ‘this form of care is being undermined’ by government encouragement of direct commercial competition.

GPs also voted unanimously ‘no confidence in the UK government’s stewardship of the NHS’ and overwhelmingly for a rider ‘no confidence in the secretary of state for health’.

Buckman intervened to oppose the rider, ‘saying we don’t do personal’ but mover Dr Eric Rose of Buckinghamshire LMC replied: ‘When someone bullies me – that’s personal.

‘When someone bankrupts a practice I’ve built up over 40 years – that’s personal!’

Don’t let GP services go the way of hospital cleaners!

Two stories on health, both significant, the latter having implications across England (and reinforcing my view that this country desperately needs a parliament and a fair electoral system so that the privatisation of the NHS can be better resisted).

Whilst cleaners working for private contractors are usually conscientious and hard-working individuals, they are not part of a team within the hospital and this means there’s a lack of accountability. So from the people on the ground, we have a reality check – cleanliness is a medical concern in hospitals, and should not a source of profit for big business:

Nurses have called for hospital cleaning to be brought back in-house to tackle hospital infections.

The Royal College of Nursing conference overwhelmingly voted for a motion proposing an end to contracting out cleaning to private firms.

Cleaning contracts have been outsourced since the 1980s and about 40% of hospitals now use the private sector.

Nurses at the Bournemouth conference said it had led to a drop in standards and a rise in infections.

The government has made cleaning one of its highest priorities to tackle infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile.

It recently oversaw a deep cleaning programme of all hospitals in England and its infection strategy published in January said good quality cleaning was essential.

MRSA rates have been falling since early 2006 with the NHS on course to halve the number of infections this year based on a 2004 baseline.

But nurses still maintained infections was a pressing issue that was not being helped by the contracting out of cleaning, something which has been particularly popular in England.

No public sector ethos

May McCreaddie, a nurse from Glasgow, said: “There has been an increase in hospital infections and decline in cleanliness. It is quite simple.”

She said private cleaning firms did not have the public sector ethos of in-house teams and there was higher staff turnover which contributed to poorer performance.

“We know what works we have been there before, we have had them. They are called ward domestics, they are an integral part of the team.”

Sheila Dunbar, a nurse from Liverpool, added: “The increase in hospital infections is a big issue. NHS trusts in north west England have started to come back in-house to have cleaner wards.”

But Derek Blackshaw, from Salisbury, said as well as bringing cleaning back in-house, it was important nurses on the wards were given responsibility for overseeing cleaning.

“It is not enough to bring it back in-house if you still need to deal with a chain of authority.”

The delegates also heard from a number of nurses who described how in-house cleaners were much more part of the NHS family.

Dominic Walsh, a nurse from London who works on an intensive care ward, said he was proud to work on a ward where the cleaners employed by the hospital.

“I can say to Monica and Arnie ‘you are coming to our Christmas party aren’t you? You’re an essential part of our team’.”

George Monbiot writes in the Guardian today of the threat of GP services – and the entire NHS in England – being privatised:

Everything is getting bigger and further away. Hospitals, post offices, schools and prisons are being “rationalised” and “consolidated”. The government says this process improves efficiency. Instead, it outsources inefficiency: we must travel further to use public services. This is bad for the environment, bad for community life, and bad for universal provision. But we haven’t seen anything yet. We are about to be confronted with the biggest shutdown of all: the government has started the process of closing England’s network of doctors’ surgeries.

If you know nothing of this, don’t blame yourself. The announcement was buried in an interim report published last October by a junior health minister. The report was 52 pages long, and the policy was explained in a single paragraph on pages 25 and 26. Rather than being brought before parliament, it was released four days before MPs returned from their recess. Since then there has been no further public announcement. But in December, the Department of Health sent a letter to all the strategic health authorities in England, demanding that the policy be implemented immediately. The greatest transformation in the history of the NHS is taking place without public debate, public consent or formal consultation.

The government’s policy is to consolidate doctors’ surgeries into a series of giant health centres, or polyclinics. Thousands of small practices will be closed and patients will be processed in buildings containing up to 50 GPs. The new clinics will also house some services at present provided by hospitals, which allows the government to claim that it is bringing healthcare “closer to home”. The net effect will be a massive reduction in convenience.

The policy was launched by Ara Darzi, a colorectal surgeon who has been raised to the peerage and made an undersecretary of state for health. He wrote his interim report in three months, during which he claims to have spoken to thousands of people. But it contains no record of who they are, how they were selected, or what their answers were: he reveals only that “their views have helped shape this interim report”. His final report will not be published until June, but the Department of Health has instructed England’s primary care trusts to advertise for bidders for the new polyclinics by May 2008: the first notices have already been posted in the Health Service Journal.

During a parliamentary debate launched by the Conservatives last week, health secretary Alan Johnson claimed three times that this policy is not being imposed on PCTs. “There is no national policy for replacing traditional GP surgeries with health centres or, indeed, polyclinics”; “we are not specifying polyclinics as any part of the exercise”; “[the Tories say] we are imposing a system of polyclinics throughout the country. We are not.” Three times, in other words, he misled the House. The letter sent by the Department of Health in December ordered that “each PCT will be expected to complete procurements during 2008/09”. In a parliamentary answer in February, health minister Ben Bradshaw confirmed that “every PCT in the country will be procuring a new … health centre during 2008-09”. A press release published by the Labour party on April 15 confirmed that the new centres would be built “in every town and city”. I hope MPs demand that Alan Johnson apologise to parliament.

Lord Darzi insists that polyclinics will offer “a more personalised service”. This is nonsense: in the enormous new centres we are less likely to be able to see the same GP, and more likely to get lost in the system. A recent paper in the British Medical Journal reveals that “patients in small practices rate their care more highly in terms of both access and continuity”, and that small practices “achieved slightly higher levels of clinical quality than larger practices”. The centres will be built not where they are most convenient for patients but – as Darzi revealed to the Commons health committee – where the NHS happens to own land. If you live in a village or a distant suburb and depend on public transport, as many elderly and sick people do, visiting the doctor could take all day. Ara Darzi is the new Dr Beeching, shutting down the branchlines of our primary health service.

So why is this happening? In seeking to surreptitiously privatise healthcare, the government has a problem. Primary care is already in private hands – GPs run their own practices. But they are the wrong hands: the corporations demanding guaranteed streams of income from the taxpayer can’t play in this field. Polyclinics are perfectly designed to let them in, while preventing doctors from competing.

It’s not just that GPs can’t raise the capital; because the contracts are much bigger than ordinary practices’ and involve many different services, the tendering process is expensive and fiendishly complex. The big service companies can produce the same bid for any number of clinics: they need spend their money only once. The Department of Health says that PCTs should use a type of contract called Alternative Provider Medical Services, which is designed to allow corporations to bid. This is not a public-private partnership: it is the outright privatisation of primary healthcare.

Do I need to explain the implications? The American health system, which the British government seems determined to emulate, is both more expensive and less efficient; those who can’t afford to pay are either excluded or treated like battery pigs. The independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs) – private clinics which carry out routine NHS operations – have been a costly disaster since being introduced in England in 2003. Private companies receive their money regardless of whether they carry out the work they are contracted to do. The government refuses to release comparative figures, but the little evidence we have suggests that their costs are much higher than the public sector’s.

The risks have been transferred back to the taxpayer, and the standards of treatment are sometimes appalling. In 2006 Angus Wallace, professor of orthopaedic and accident surgery at Nottingham University, told the Guardian: “We expect failures of hip replacements at approximately 1% a year and knees at about 1.5% a year. But we have got some of the ISTCs that are looking at 20% failure rates.” Because they put profits first, companies that run these centres have generated a stack of litigation claims and a huge NHS bill for repairing the damage they have caused. Far from reversing its policy in the light of this evidence, the government is setting up a competition panel to ensure that the health service never discriminates in favour of the public sector when awarding contracts.

Did any of us ask for this? Are there crowds on the streets demanding the privatisation of the NHS? Even the Tories have come out against it: David Cameron’s speech last week placed them to the left of Labour. Why, after the 60-odd quarters of consecutive growth that Gordon Brown keeps boasting about, can he not maintain a public service founded in the midst of poverty and rationing? What mysterious hold on policy do the corporations possess, that they can persuade this government to wreck Labour’s finest achievement and damage its chances of re-election?