Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Come
back Gilligan, all is forgiven. Penny Young, Diss, Norfolk,
to The Guardian, February 24, 2005
Spin, not
face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth. Ann Leslie
- Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Power
cut, please
Labour's
pollsters have Tony Blair running scared, because they have
informed him that if turnout at the next election is below
50%, the result will be a hung parliament. This would be
good news for those of us who, viewing the damage inflicted
by recent governments, would like nothing better than a
Parliament powerless to do anything. Letter from Ron
Phillips, London W14 - Daily Mail 17/2/05
|
Tony
Blair's pledge cards made no mention of pensioners. Perhaps
they're the jokers.
Letter
to the Daily Mail from Brian Green, Daventry, Northants
- February 22, 2005
The
Guardian's Polly Toynbee says 'a profoundly nasty streak'
among voters worried about poverty, crime and immigration
might cause them to vote against the Government. Isn't
it time we replaced the present electorate with one more
to Polly's liking? Ephraim Hardcastle, Daily Mail,
February 24, 2005
|
Billions
pour into an NHS money trap
By
Eddie Barnes - The Scotsman on Sunday, February 27, 2005
Compare
and contrast. First up, Alex Falconer. The 64-year-old former
Labour MEP for Mid-Scotland and Fife brewed up something of a
political storm last week when he openly admitted that health-care
in Scotland had been far better under the Conservatives.
His
claim came as he opened up about his own experience of the NHS.
Falconer has two health problems: a troublesome ear and a chronic
lung problem called asbestos pleural plaques which causes shortness
of breath. For both conditions, he used to see a consultant at
his local Queen Margaret Infirmary in Dunfermline, with a maximum
wait of three months. But that has now grown to six months - and
he has to travel to the Victoria Infirmary in Kirkcaldy.
"Also
under the Tories, I had an NHS dentist. Now I don't have one and
the prospect of getting one is remote," Falconer declared.
The
picture for 71-year-old Els Bleuler is somewhat brighter. She
was suffering from a painful right foot recently and so visited
her family doctor. She was immediately referred to an orthopedist,
who saw her the following day and recommended an operation. Mrs
Bleuler, however, wasn’t happy and she decided to seek a
second opinion. The new surgeon told her she would require a non-urgent
tendon operation. She then had to wait just two weeks for the
operation and was given a choice of two hospitals where it would
be carried out - neither of which have waiting lists.
The
difference is that Bleuler lives in Zurich, where the Swiss private
health insurance system puts patients in charge of their own treatment.
The 113,000 patients who are languishing on the official inpatient
waiting list in Scotland can only dream of such service. Falconer’s
story on the other hand will have a depressing air of familiarity.
As
figures on Scotland’s waiting list showed last week, the
condition of health-care in Scotland remains distinctly second-rate.
On the positive side, Health Minister Andy Kerr was able to reveal
that the longest waits were coming down. He claimed hospitals
had reduced the waits for coronary heart disease treatment to
the shortest in the UK. Meanwhile, efforts by NHS managers have
led to a 20% reduction in the number of people waiting more than
six months for inpatient treatment.
Yet
the waiting list - the official sum counting the number of patients
who have been diagnosed yet are still awaiting a hospital appointment
- has grown once again to 113,612, up 1,590 from this time last
year. Meanwhile, the typical wait for patients admitted to hospitals
during the last three months of 2004 was 43 days, up from 40 days
in 2003.
And
there are clear signs the situation is getting worse. Scotland
on Sunday today reveals that, for the first time ever, Scotland
is treating fewer outpatients per head of population than England.
A study by Dr Matthew Dunnigan, senior research fellow at the
University of Glasgow, found that in 1990 Scotland was treating
33% more people in outpatients clinics than England per head of
population. Last year, England was treating 4% more. Dunnigan
claims the results are due to poor management within the Scottish
NHS.
It
all amounts to declining productivity after a spell of massive
investment by the Scottish Executive. Extra billions are flooding
in to the system but patients are finding the returns hard to
identify. While England is moving towards reform - emphasising
patient choice and radical thinking in the delivery of services
- Labour ministers in the Executive are reluctant to follow.
It
is perhaps an indication of the state of the nation’s expectations
about hospital services that Kerr presented this week’s waiting
list findings as "good news". He would "sweat the
NHS asset" further, he declared in best management-speak
but, broadly speaking, everything was looking rosy.
It
is an assessment few government minister in other European countries
would be proud to make. Across the Continent, the boast of health
ministers is not so much that they are reducing waiting times:
it is that they don’t have them in the first place. For patients
in Germany, France and Switzerland, the idea of waiting for hospital
treatment is simply anathema. In Britain, however, patients are
told they will soon be fortunate enough to "only" wait
for 18 weeks.
The
French healthcare system is often hailed as the best in the world:
when the World Health Organisation produced a global ranking of
health systems for its 2000 World Health Report, France came out
on top. Hospitals are well equipped: France has the highest number
of transplant units, scanners and radiation machines per head
of population in the world. The ratio of hospital beds to population
is so high that beds are often empty.
For
58-year-old Briton John Moore, who has lived in Toulouse since
he was 21, the results are clear. "We’ve had all our
five children in the public hospitals here. The service each time
was excellent. It was very much about your individual preference,"
he said. "Operations are usually done very quickly."
There
is a similar mood in Germany. According to one health economist,
if patients are waiting for more than 10 minutes in a queue for
treatment "they just say ‘sod it’ and go off to
a hospital somewhere else".
How
do they do it? According to Sarah Thompson, research officer for
the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies at the
London School of Economics, the answer is simple. "It’s
because the French and Germans spend much more on health. "
According
to the OECD, Germany comes out top of a list of EU countries on
spending, with 10.9% of its gross domestic product being spent
on health. France is close behind on 9.7%. The United Kingdom,
by contrast, spends just 7.7%.
This,
however, isn’t the full picture. Top of the world league
of health spenders is the USA. It is proof that it isn’t
just the amount of cash that makes the difference, it is also
the way the system is organised.
Britain
is almost alone, according to Dr Eamon Butler of the Adam Smith
Institute, in running its health service with tight national controls.
"Systems elsewhere are far more devolved," he said.
"Here there is this huge hierarchy of managers and officials
to run these things. Then politicians are always setting targets
and the whole thing ossifies and becomes a sclerotic mess."
In
Germany taxpayers pay out an allotted sum from their wage packet
and then choose one of 450 different "sickness funds"
- social insurance companies - which buy them their healthcare,
including from the 50% of hospitals which are private. With companies
hunting for the best deal, hospitals are forced to compete for
business. The system is similar in Switzerland, where taxpayers
have obligatory insurance schemes with private companies which
shop around for the best deal. "UK waiting times are viewed
with horror and incredulity, and are cited as a cautionary example
of what happens when responsibility for healthcare passes from
the individual to the state," says journalist Martin Bott.
Meanwhile,
those countries with waiting lists are finding novel solutions
to try and sort them out. In Denmark, a maximum waiting time guarantee
has been lowered from three months to two months. If the local
county hospital is unable to provide treatment, patients have
a right to seek treatment in another hospital - or country. In
Sweden, some hospitals have been entirely freed from central control,
with the state guaranteeing set payments for individual procedures.
That means hospitals have an incentive to increase productivity.
None
of these systems are perfect. In France the government was forced
last year to table major reforms in the face of vast deficits.
But the public backlash over those reforms is nothing compared
to the growing anger of the public across the world where centrally
run systems are hitting the rocks. This is most notable in Canada
which, according to the OECD, has the highest per capita spending
in the world for a system with universal access to healthcare.
Canada is alone in banning the use of the private sector in health
care. Unsurprisingly, waiting times are a major issue.
Of
developed countries, it appears only Britain can match this performance.
A study in 2002 of waiting times for the UK, Australia, Canada,
New Zealand and the United States, put the two countries at the
bottom of the pile. In the UK, 38% of people in Britain said they
had waited more than four months for non-emergency surgery, compared
with 27% in Canada.
Back
in Scotland, ministers insist they are turning the corner. NHS
Scotland’s chief executive Dr Kevin Woods talks enthusiastically
about efforts to implement "service re-design" which
include one-stop clinics for outpatients and new booking systems
which smooth the path for patients to come into hospital.
And
Andy Kerr is preparing to unveil a series of medium-term contracts
with the private sector which will have a specific remit to clear
the waiting backlog.
Ian
Smith, chief executive of BMI Healthcare - one of those companies
involved in talks with Kerr - says that his company can offer
"unlimited" services to the NHS, if ministers are willing
to pay.
"My
sense is that they [the Executive] want to do the right thing
which is to get the waiting list down," he said. "There
has been a change in the political mind."
But
the involvement of the private sector in Scotland will still be
tiny after Kerr’s deliberations. The contracts, to carry
out some work on behalf of the NHS, will account for just 0.2%
of the total health budget in Scotland.
The
latest revelations on NHS Scotland productivity and the lengthening
waiting lists suggest the Executive’s approach of rocketing
spending without serious reform is not delivering. After vast
increases to the health budget which will exceed £10 billion
next year, the question now is: why should we wait any more?
|
Perhaps
Ann Widdecombe was right about Michael Howard, but it
should have been KNIGHT with a K, and he could have saved
us from the monsters Blair and Campbell - Letter to
the Dail Mayil from Les Fletcher, Rhos-on-Sea, Colwyn
Bay, Wales - February 18, 2005
After
a clear vote against them, we still got eight non-elected
Regional Assemblies. When we vote against the EU Constitution,
we'll get them anyway. Letter from P.Cove, Aylesbury,
BUCKS.- Daily Mail, January 31, 2005
THE
TIMES slavish support for the Government worries some
members of the paper's staff, not to mention any perspicacious
readers who are left. Political editor Philip Webster
was questioned about this when he addressed colleagues
as part of an in-house 'masterclass' exercise. Small wonder.
One of his Blair-worshipping subordinates wrote a news
story yesterday poo-pooing the row over Labours anti-semitic
poster mocking Michael Howard, saying it was merely £5million
worth of 'free publicity' for the party. Ephraim Hardcastle
- Daily Mail, Febrauary 2, 2005
Hold
the front page
Further
to BBC bias (Mail), very often on BBC Breakfast and Breakfast
With Frost, coverage of the morning papers is censored.
If the front page of the Daily Mail is critical of Tony
Blair and his Soviet-style Government, it is not shown,
although the front pages of all the other newspapers are
shown. A supposedly independent broadcasting body is acting
as censor for this Government - an absolute disgrace.
Letter from Peter Fish, Chippenham, Wilts. .- Daily Mail,
February 17, 2005
|
The
REAL NASTY PARTY- How
Labour is the true home of spite, bigotry and contempt for the
public
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
defiance of the democratic process and the will of the majority
of we people of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter
or urgency, and not just in the two by-elections we have had this
July and the European elections in June 2004. But how can this
be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
