support the NHS workers out on strike today

Today see's many NHS workers including midwives and vital workers who keep us healthy everyday helping our sick and injured back to healthiness again. The old phrase if you pay peanuts you get monkeys could not be more relevant today. If you pay your staff very little does not expect them to feel valued and appreciated for their work they do. Many NHS workers work very long shifts and have to endure some very challenging working conditions. Take an ambulance driver and crew they do not know what they are turning up to when called out. They could make the difference between saving someone’s life or not. I was born in a NHS hospital and have been helped out allot when I’ve had trouble or been ill in the past. The level of support I received when I was losing my sight was very touching you got the feeling these people really do care about others and want to help others even if their pay is not great. In a fantastic article posted on LibCom about why NHS workers should strike this week puts it brilliantly "The privatisation of the NHS, dismantling of the welfare state, and attacks on terms and conditions mean that nurses are facing the biggest battle in their history. The time for negotiation has finished. So what are you going to do? I recall vividly a conversation with a colleague several years ago. The discussion was about job cuts, unsafe staffing levels, and pay. She said to me, “You are a nurse, you should never strike”. Industrial action of any description was not on the cards, it was just a general chat. That statement has stuck with me ever since, and with the upcoming public sector strikes, the issues of nurses and industrial action is now back on the agenda. I will be on strike on the 30th, but not as a nurse as. I left clinical practice to work in nurse education earlier this year. However, I will always be a nurse first and foremost. After recently speaking to friends and former colleagues, it is clear that the same old debates about striking and industrial action are being discussed. The RCN which represents the bulk of registered nurses in the UK (400,000) has stated that it will ballot for industrial action in January if the government does not back down on its pension reforms. The RCN has many qualities; it has other roles than just being a trade union, and does a very good job. However, as a trade union it is generally weak, and about as un-militant as you can get. To be fair though, it never claims to be anything else. It has enjoyed comfortable relationships with governments, and its membership is seen as less militant that the nurses who are with UNISON. This will be the first time in its history that they will have balloted for industrial action, and judging by debate within the media between the government and the RCN, there is definitely a souring of the relationship, which can only be a good thing. The government will not back down, so when the ballot goes ahead, I am absolutely positive that they will vote for strike action. The result may be closer than other unions, but I am confident it will be passed. What does this then mean for nurses, patients, and the government? The first issue takes me back to my colleagues comment about not striking. Why shouldn’t nurses strike? Well, “our first priority should be our patients”. I agree, however, what are nurses supposed to do when employers and governments do not provide adequate staffing or funding, or close services that are desperately needed, or make attempts to privatise the NHS? Negotiation can only go so far. To be completely passive is not in the interest of any patient who requires service that is closing. No one is suggesting that NHS be completely shut down. Nurses would provide a skeleton service during a strike. They would not leave people at risk of harm. I say this not just as a nurse, but as a human being. Clearly striking is not the only type of action available, and there other just as effective actions that could be taken. The NHS is a huge paper based bureaucracy, with paperwork for everything. It also relies on the constant goodwill of nurses, working through breaks, staying behind to support busy colleagues (unpaid). Nurses could withdraw their unpaid labour, and refused to complete anything but paperwork specifically relating to patient care, they could generally work to rule. I have never met a nurse’s who does not carry out work that is not within their job description. So striking is not the only option, but whatever action is taken, patients would not be left at risk. The moral argument of nurses not striking does not hold any water for me. In fact, I would argue that it is immoral not to take action, when an employer or government are implementing changes that will have a negative impact on patient care. The next argument that is thrown up is, “what about the public perception of nurses”. And what about, “upholding the reputation of the profession”? I would refer anyone using this argument to the last paragraph. It is not as if nurses go on strike in this country very often is it? There has to be a line that when it is crossed, nurses should say, ‘enough is enough’. I always remember many nurses saying, I wouldn’t strike for pay, but if they ever went after my pension I definitely would. Well guess what? With regards to the public perception of nurse’s striking, I would argue that the vast majority of the public would support them. I feel that the public are aware that nurses are not repeat strikers, and would possibly take the attitude that things must be bad if nurses strike. Furthermore, the public pressure that a government would face would increase if nurses’ took action, possibly shortening the duration of any dispute. What made me so angry was the NMC (Nursing and Midwifery Council) the governing professional body for nurses, making a statement last month, stating that “any nurse who went on strike would be in violation of the professional code of conduct” and would possibly struck of the register and lose their career. This was a disgraceful stance to take, no doubt pressured by the government to make those comments. They quickly changed that statement following uproar amongst nurses. They anticipated many people caving in due to the threat of a fitness to practice panel, but it had the opposite effect, nurses became angrier. For me, the old arguments of nurses and industrial action are just that, old. My patients are my first priority, and the action that is sometimes needed to effectively care and treat someone, stretches beyond providing nursing care. I cannot provide sufficient care if a I have fewer colleagues than needed, or if the service I work for closes, or if we cannot recruit nurses because no one wants to train anymore, or if the government refuse to fund certain treatments, or if the government sells of the NHS, or allows the market to break it up. If nurses genuinely want to make the patient their first priority they should bloody well stand up for what is right, and not swallow the nonsense that has kept nurses subservient for the past century. Everything I have said is not based on the fact that I am an anarcho-syndicalist or indeed political in any way. It is based on having a desire to provide the care and treatment that I believe should be provided. It is about time nurses fought back. They are far and away the biggest staff group within the NHS and healthcare, and their potential influence and impact cannot be underestimated. They are a sleeping giant that needs to wake, and quickly. If they do not, they will one day wake to find the NHS renamed ABC healthcare, and they will no longer be able to provide effective care, or make patients their first priority. Their first priority will then be £ sign! Another thing the nurse who I mentioned earlier said to me was, “what would Florence Nightingale say about it all”. Well, I never met her, as she was a bit before my time. However, with what I know about her I suspect she would have said something along the lines of, “If you want to make patients your first priority you cannot allow the government to sell off the NHS, and you cannot allow them to dismantle the public sector or welfare state. Negotiation has been tried and failed. It is time to get around your workplaces, and organise!!!!!” Posted By Working class s... Nov 23 2011 11:34 With thanks and link to original post at http://libcom.org/blog/why-nurses-should-take-industrial-action-23112011

Outsourced Britain

As austerity continues to bites one of the big features before and now very much more so after the great recession is the idea of outsourcing and it is really happening on a huge scale lets be frank. Outsourcing is a good way for capitalist to drive down labour costs during times of austerity. Take N Power this week. "Npower is to cut 1,400 UK jobs. PA Npower is to close offices and outsource work to India in a move that will see 1,400 UK staff lose their jobs at the energy supplier. The announcement is expected to intensify public anger around the activities of the Big Six power companies and raise the political heat in Westminster where energy has risen to the top of the political agenda. Trade unions accused npower of serving up a "Christmas nightmare" by planning to offshore 1,400 jobs to India and transfer a further 570 to another British firm, probably Capita. It is understood that frontline call-centre operations will be outsourced to a third party in the UK, with back-office work moved to India. Union leaders warned the moves would backfire and further tarnish the reputation of npower which came bottom for customer service in a recent survey and which told a parliamentary committee earlier this year that it had paid almost no corporation tax for three years. Npower, the energy supplier of Germany's RWE, hit gas and electricity customers with a 10.4% rise in fuel bills earlier this month and its central London offices were the target of fuel poverty demonstrations earlier this week. The company declined to comment on the planned office and staff cuts but well-informed sources told the Guardian that npower staff would be informed of the changes at 9am on Thursday. Npower said in a statement: "As we announced a couple of months ago, npower has been undertaking a major review of sites, operations and people across the UK. "We've been doing this to improve our customer service and keep our costs down, at a time of external pressures on customers' bills. As we've always said, we'll tell our people first and then inform the media," it added. Npower and the other big six firms such as SSE and Centrica insist that they have to raise domestic bills and trim their costs in a bid to counter the impact of rising wholesale prices and green levies for home insulation. Npower's parent RWE said earlier this month that 6,750 jobs would need to be cut across Europe as it tries to reduce a debt mountain of over £28bn, partly caused by the Berlin government's decision to phase out nuclear power stations." The key bit that jumps out at me in that piece in the Guardian was the cutting costs line. This is clearly not to cut costs for the customers and those who use Npower but to keep costs down for the business and to maintain profits and raise profit levels if possible. With Britain being the second biggest nation for outsourcing we will see in time if its allowed to happen a huge wave of outsourcing to other cheaper nations and to areas where the labour costs are cheaper. In an excellent piece on Open democracy Stuart Weir writes "The government has put a huge FOR SALE sign over the country’s public assets and services. According to the sharedserviceslink.com website, the bulletin board for “leaders in finance shared services”, the United Kingdom is the world’s largest out-sourcing market after the United States. The number of contracts in the UK has increased sharply by 47 per cent to 148 contracts a year since 2010. The annual contract value for this country jumped 16 per cent in 2012 to $3.75 billion! All this before the major sale drive about to take place in the NHS. The International Services Group (ISG) states that the UK accounted for 80 per cent of all contracting out across Europe, the Middle East and Africa, making our government alone among the major European economies in using out-sourcing as a key element in its response to austerity. Richard Vize, of Outsourcer Eye, says that the application of cuts is dominated by “short-term thinking”. The effects of all this activity on quality or cost is unclear and there is no reliable information on the impact of cuts or out-sourcing – though these effects are visible, for example, in local government, the NHS and government agencies such as the Inland Revenue. The government’s “short-term” thinking is of course, as Polly Toynbee warned recently, part of a determined and reckless long-term drive to reduce the public sector to a mere rump. Social security is gradually being outsourced to charities and food banks, while services and assets are increasingly handed out to private firms to operate at often extortionate prices (like the trains), described by George Monbiot as the 'toll booth economy'. The effects on ordinary citizens will be far-reaching and devastating, the more so for the vulnerable people whom the state has long acknowledged a responsibility to protect. The state is being fundamentally transformed before our eyes. This is a phase or a form of capitalism which is turning public service’s into money making enterprises and this will stop at nothing. From our energy sector to our schools and hospitals nothing is sacred when it comes to capital's drive for greater and grater profits. With thanks to open democracy link to article at http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/stuart-weir/uk-becomes-worlds-second-largest-outsourcing-market

Doctors and nurses may face jail for neglect

Worrying new laws to be looked at and introduced very soon by the government will see doctors and nurse’s possibly facing jail in future for poor car and neglect. I think this hugely miss's the point of bad care and stories like mid Staffs. Do not help matters. I do think the lack of proper funding and staffing levels do need closer examination and that's where the focus for me should be instead. Doctors and nurses found guilty of "wilful neglect" of patients could face jail, the government is proposing. Wilful neglect will be made a criminal offence in England and Wales under NHS changes next week following the Mid Staffordshire and other care scandals. The offence will be modelled on one punishable by up to five years in prison under the Mental Capacity Act. Doctors' leaders said the threat of criminal sanctions could create a climate of fear in the NHS. The government's proposals are due to be unveiled next week. Prime Minister David Cameron said health workers who mistreated and abused patients would face "the full force of the law" in a package of measures. A consultation on what scale of sentence should be applied to the extended law will be carried out over the next few months. The move was one of the central recommendations of a review of patient safety commissioned by ministers after findings that hundreds suffered unacceptable treatment at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. Human beings make mistakes - you can't change the human condition, but you can help support the humans in having systems” End Quote Dr Maureen Baker Chairman of the Royal College of GPs It was led by Professor Don Berwick, a former adviser to US president Barack Obama, who said the measure was needed to target the worst cases of a "couldn't care less" attitude that led to "wilful or reckless neglect or mistreatment". Mr Cameron said the NHS was full of "brilliant" staff but the Mid Staffordshire case showed care was "sometimes not good enough". "That is why we have taken a number of different steps that will improve patient care and improve how we spot bad practice," he said. "Never again will we allow substandard care, cruelty or neglect to go unnoticed". Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said the proposal should be introduced alongside the package of measures detailed in Sir Robert Francis's public inquiry report into failings at Stafford Hospital, including minimum staffing levels. He warned against the government adopting a "pick and mix" approach. He also urged them to "tread carefully" to avoid denigrating staff. The BMA's Dr Andrew Collier called the move "a headline-grabbing exercise" A spokesman for the Welsh government said it would not comment until it had seen the proposals on Tuesday. The British Medical Association (BMA) said doctors and nurses might be less likely to speak out against colleagues if they thought they would go to jail as a result. Dr Andrew Collier, co-chairman of the BMA's junior doctors' committee, said doctors who failed to meet certain standards needed support and help. "They don't need this new climate of fear. They don't need to be concerned that they may be sent to jail. What they need to do is learn from their mistakes and develop their practice," he told BBC Breakfast. He called the move a "headline-grabbing exercise" and said it did not address the other recommendations made by Prof Berwick, such as minimum staffing levels and culture changes. Dr Maureen Baker, the new chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said: "Doctors, nurses - we are human. Human beings make mistakes. "You can't change the human condition, but you can help support the humans in having systems around them that help keep them safe, caring and compassionate." Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said a law change on its own was "not a panacea". He added that legally enforced staffing levels would have a far greater impact on patient care, as they had in Australia and California. Peter Walsh said the government must not avoid "more difficult" NHS reforms But Julie Bailey, who founded pressure group Cure the NHS to expose failings at Stafford Hospital following her mother's death there, welcomed the government's proposal, saying: "Now it's time for patients' safety to be a priority." A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: "We will analyse these proposals once published by the UK government and will consider if further legislation is required in Scotland to supplement the existing arrangements of professional regulation." Peter Walsh, chief executive of patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents, welcomed the possibility of prison sentences for neglect, but said a "much more joined-up approach" was needed. He said the "full set of recommendations" from Sir Robert Francis's inquiry must be implemented. Mr Walsh said he hoped the latest announcement was not intended to distract attention from some of the "more difficult" recommendations the government "may be reluctant to implement", such as minimum staffing levels. He rejected the BMA's suggestion the new law might make people more reluctant to report colleagues, saying he had "more faith in the medical profession" than that. Any new rules much apply to everyone in health organisations - from the "board to the ward" - he added. Last month, the World Medical Association, which represents 102 national medical associations, condemned government attempts to control how doctors practise medicine, including criminalising medical decision-making.

Victory for save Lewisham A and E but wider battle continues

Well done to all involved in save Lewisham A and E on their victory today in the appeals court. Much solidarity and congratulations to you but this can not be a time to rest on our laurels and we must be aware of the wider battle against our NHS still going on out there from this government. "The Appeal Court today ruled against government attempts to close most of the popular Lewisham Hospital. But even as campaigners celebrate, MPs prepare to vote on whether to legalise such fast-track hospital closures elsewhere. http://www.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/girl save our hospital.png The Appeal Court today dismissed a government appeal in the long running battle over substantial cuts to Lewisham Hospital. The ruling will be deservedly celebrated in the streets of Lewisham, where “Save Lewisham A&E” campaign posters have plastered the streets for months. But it also raises the stakes on new government attempts to legalise these kind of “accelerated” hospital cuts elsewhere. MPs will vote on the new move next month, in an amendment hastily tagged onto the Care Bill. This is something we must make ourselves aware of very quickly. The government are not just going to sit back and accept these decisions lightly they will come back and this amendment to the law will allow them to do just that. During the summer the High Court ruled that health secretary Jeremy Hunt acted unlawfully in trying to close Lewisham’s A&E and large chunks of its services, as part of an Administration process that was dealing with a different, neighbouring Hospital Trust, South London. Today the government lost an appeal against that ruling. Lewisham itself is hopefully now safe. But the government - perhaps anticipating this defeat - has a plan B that will make it far easier for them to close or downgrade other hospitals across the country in future, without the consent or support of local people or GPs. The government has added a last minute amendment to Care Bill to legalise much more widespread use of fast-track hospital closures. The amendment will - if passed in the Commons next month - allow the government to accept recommendations from Administrators appointed to take over clinically or financially struggling Trusts, to cut or downgrade nearby hospitals that are part of other Trusts. Closure decisions - which could be taken even where these nearby hospitals themselves are successful and popular - will be able to be taken with minimal public consultation - a mere 40 days, compared to the normal 2 years or more. Introducing the amendment in the Commons earlier this month, Earl Howe admitted the amendment drastically reduced “the statutory obligations of commissioners to involve and consult patients and the public in planning and making service changes” and extended to even successful trusts an "accelerated process" with "no provision for referral to local authority scrutiny" or need to have regard to the views of local people and clinicians. Dr David Nicholl, Consultant Neurologist in Birmingham, and on the council of the Royal College of Physicians said “speaking personally I can see that this legislation has the potential to threaten any hospital, with minimal consultation" He urged other medical professionals to raise concerns with their Royal Colleges, adding “it is vital any reconfigurations are clinically led. This judgement has shown that the special administrator approach is totally the wrong one." The Royal College of Physicians have already raised concerns over the clause in the Health Service Journal, saying "Any decisions affecting the broader health economy should be clinically-led, should be driven by the best interests of patients and should involve the wider health community from the beginning". Vicky Penner, former patient at Lewisham and a member of the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign, warned “The Government's attempt to rush through an amendment to the Care Bill through Parliament which would give Trust Special Administrators, and in turn the Government, unlimited geographical power without proper consultation means that no hospital in the country will be safe. “It seems that if the Government cannot win in Court, they will bully their plans through Parliament, showing their utter contempt for normal people and democracy.”" Democracy in action from this group of toffs who claim to rule us today. Its time they go along with the system they represent. Quotes and extracts from the fantastic Caroline Molloy at open democracy site http://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/victory-for-lewisham-hospital-but-governments-plan-b-threatens-100s-more-hosp

Should workers support state intervention ?

Whenever there is a crisis and a huge number of workers are in danger of loosing their jobs such as with Grangemouth last week the thing that comes from the left is to simply nationalise the company in question but very rarely the question of workers control is raised. Simply shouting "public ownership" is the answer to all our woes is wholely inadequate in my opinion. Much like with the big 6 energy companies who are ripping us all off at present the answer from the left is to "nationalise" them everytime. Yet all this is calling for is state capitalism. But would this be benificial to us in any way ? State capitalism was the way of things after the Second World War with many industries being brought into public ownership like the Coal and water industries for example more followed with a national health care system known today as the NHS of course. But the labour government at the time saw it fit to keep the boss's in charge of these state backed companies which meant they were no more democratic or accountable than before. Ok they had huge government funding but remained with teh same boss's as they did d before. This was not socialism and was rightly called state capitalism . "However, that does not answer the question of what we do in the here and now when faced with demands that the welfare state (for the working class, not corporate welfare) and other reforms be rolled back. This attack has been on going since the 1970s, accelerating since 1980. We should be clear that claims to be minimising the state should be taken with a massive pitch of salt as the likes of Reagan were "elected to office promising to downsize government and to 'get the government off the people's back,' even though what he meant was to deregulate big business, and make them free to exploit the workers to increase profits. The state may be influenced by popular struggle but it remains an instrument of capitalist rule. It may intervene in society as a result of people power and by the necessity to keep the system as a whole going, but it is bureaucratic and influenced by the wealthy and big business. Indeed, the onslaught on the welfare state by both Thatcher and Reagan was conducted under a "democratic" mandate although, in fact, these governments took advantage of the lack of real accountability between elections. They took advantage of an aspect of the state if you substitute government ownership for private ownership, "nothing is changed but the stockholders and the management; beyond that, there is not the least difference in the position of the workers." "Privatisation of public services -- whether it is through the direct sale of utilities or through indirect methods such as PFI and PPP -- involves a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the pockets of private business interests. It negates the concept of there being such a thing as 'public service' and subjects everything to the bottom line of profit. In other words it seeks to maximise the profits of a few at the expense of wages and social obligations. Furthermore, privatisation inevitably leads to an attack on wages and working conditions - conditions which have been fought for through years of trade union agitation are done away with at the scratch of a pen." [Gregor Kerr, "Privatisation: the rip-off of public resources", pp. 14-18, Black and Red Revolution, no. 11, p. 16] is important to point out that the 'nationalise it' or 'take it into public ownership' slogan is far too often spun out by people on the left without their taking into account that there is a massive difference between state control/ownership and workers' control/ownership . . . we all know that even if the revenues . . . were still in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or reducing hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government. "Put simply, state ownership does not equal workers' ownership . Thus an revolutionary socialist approach to this issue would be to reject both privatisation and nationalisation in favour of socialisation, i.e. placing nationalised firms under workers' self-management. In the terms of public utilities, such as water and power suppliers, they could be self-managed by their workers in association with municipal co-operatives -- based on one member, one vote -- which would be a much better alternative than privatising what is obviously a natural monopoly (which, as experience shows, simply facilitates the fleecing of the public for massive private profit). Christie and Meltzer state the obvious: "It is true that government takes over the control of certain necessary social functions. It does not follow that only the state could assume such control. The postmen are 'civil servants' only because the State makes them such. The railways were not always run by the state, They belonged to the capitalists [and do once more, at least in the UK], and could as easily have been run by the railway workers. " In the long term, of course, the real solution is to abolish capitalism "and both citizens and communities will have no need of the intervention of the State." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 268] In a free society, social self-defence would not be statist but would be similar in nature to trade unionism, co-operatives and pressure groups -- individuals working together in voluntary associations to ensure a free and just society -- within the context of an egalitarian, decentralised and participatory system which eliminates or reduces the problems in the first place SO in conclusion its all about control and workers control at that . Putting it simply you cannot control waht you dont own. Fighting for democratic workers control from below is the only way forward in my opinion when situations like Grangemouth come up again which no doubt they will do as capitalism fails to develop itself out of a huge rutt. with quotes and extracts from http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionD1#secd15

How workers won the NHS

courtesey of Jon Dale, Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales), first published in the Socialist The National Health Service (NHS) is 65 years old on 5 July. Those people who remember life before it are getting fewer. With non-stop news of overflowing Accident and Emergency departments, hospital scandals and whistle-blowers, is the NHS just another brand going through a tough time? Maybe one whose time has been and gone. The Tories and their press deliberately encourage this view. After all, the goods sold by those companies can still be obtained elsewhere - so does it really matter if the NHS disappears in all but name? Wouldn’t treatment still be available from GPs, clinics and hospitals? And so long as they’re free to use does it matter who provides them? The NHS was created after World War Two, when working class people were determined there would be no return to the poverty, hunger, squalor and diseases of the 1930s. The history of healthcare and the struggle to win a national health service has vital lessons for today’s health workers, trade unionists and all of us who use the NHS at some time in our lives. Jon Dale writes on the birth of the NHS. Illness, injury and childbirth meant terror for working class families before the NHS. The Workers’ Birth Control Group had the slogan, "It’s four times more dangerous to bear a child than to go down a mine." The ruling class feared that if it did not concede real improvements, workers would take action and fight for even bigger change, threatening the entire capitalist system. A similar situation had existed after World War One. There was a strong mood for real change. Workers had had enough of pre-war poverty and the horrors of the trenches. Russian workers overthrowing their ruling class and starting to create a workers’ state gave an inspiring example. The Labour Party agreed its socialist Clause 4 in 1918. The election programme of Labour, then still a new workers’ party, called for widespread nationalisation and minimum standards of health, education, leisure and income for all. Its vote jumped from 400,000 in 1910 to 2.5 million in 1918. Labour’s growth was one reason why Liberal Prime Minister David Lloyd George set up the first Ministry of Health in 1919. Workers did not wait for government action to give them a better life. Almost seven times more days were lost in strikes in 1919 than in 1918. Troops and tanks were sent in to break up a huge strike in Glasgow. Tens of thousands of British soldiers and sailors mutinied in Calais and started to establish a trade union. Liverpool police went on strike. London dockers refused to load a ship, the Jolly George, with weapons destined for imperialist armies sent to crush the gains of the Russian revolution. Russian revolution Lloyd George promised to build "a land fit for heroes". He meant that workers could depend on his government to deliver reforms and there was no need to follow the revolutionary road of the Russian working class, or Germany and Hungary where revolutionary uprisings also occurred. In 1920 Lloyd George asked the king’s physician, Lord Dawson, to report on an organised health service. Dawson proposed a watered-down version of plans already put forward by a group of radical doctors, the State Medical Services Association. But his plan was soon shelved. In 1921 a new slump sent unemployment soaring to two million. Right-wing union leaders called off solidarity strikes by rail and transport workers against cuts in miners’ pay. Seeing the weakness of the working class’s leadership, the government decided there was no need to make concessions. Four months later public spending cuts were announced - on a scale not repeated until today’s Con-Dem coalition. By 1925 workers were regaining militancy. A new threat of a general strike was made against attempts to cut the pay of a million miners. A Royal Commission on National Health Insurance recommended extending it to workers’ dependents. The 1926 general strike was defeated when right-wing union leaders called it off, although it was growing and paralysing the government. The Royal Commission’s plans were scrapped. Healthcare for many remained dependent on ability to pay for it. The 1930s were a period of mass unemployment, terrible poverty and humiliation of working class families through the means test. Socialist ideas gained support and the Labour Party reflected this with a programme calling for widespread nationalisation. Many middle class people also moved towards left-wing ideas, feeling that capitalism was failing as a system. This move to the left was given added impetus with fascism seizing power in Germany and war on the revolutionary Spanish workers. The Socialist Medical Association grew from 200 to 2,000 members. Left-wing doctors within it drew up detailed plans for a socialised health service, both preventative and curative. In 1934 it moved a motion at Labour Party conference calling for a national health service. The ruling class felt far from confident that it had the mass support they needed during World War Two. Calls to defend king and country - the ’British way of life’ - did not inspire workers in factories, mines or the armed forces who had suffered in the depression. Pre-war health services were completely inadequate for mass casualties from air raids and the forces. Many middle class people, forced to use municipal former Poor Law hospitals for the first time, were horrified at their primitive state. Voluntary hospitals provided better medical and nursing care but were bankrupt. Run as charities, they relied on fees from private patients, legacies and fund-raising events but could barely keep going, asking for government bailouts. Faced with this grim situation, the government formed the Emergency Medical Service. For the first time, aspects of healthcare were planned on a national basis. The advantages of cooperation between hospitals and doctors instead of competition for business were soon seen. (The disadvantages of competition are being seen now it has been driven into the heart of the NHS by Cameron’s government.) Beverage report To show the working class it would not return to 1930s’ mass unemployment and misery - and fearing a revolutionary wave as followed World War One - the government asked William Beveridge to produce plans for social security. When this civil servant’s report came out in December 1942 60,000 copies were sold overnight, with 600,000 sold in two years. He wrote: "A health service providing full preventative and curative treatment to every kind of citizen... without an economic barrier at any point... is the ideal plan." Beveridge’s plans were opposed by some of the ruling class. Even before Beveridge, an editorial in the Times in March 1941 warned of their post-war fears. "In the aftermath of the war there will be a strong and widespread temptation to abandon the sense of a common effort for a common cause, to resume the rivalry between capital and labour for the extraction of a maximum profit from the process of production... "If such trends were to prevail... our whole society - national as well as international - might well be in sight of disaster." On Beveridge’s proposals, Prime Minister Winston Churchill claimed they were unaffordable. Sir John Forbes Watson, director of the Confederation of British Employers said (in private): "We did not start this war with Germany in order to improve our social services." Other ruling class members were more far-sighted. Tory MP Quintin Hogg, later a cabinet minister, warned in the 1943 parliamentary debate on Beveridge’s report: "If you do not give the people social reform, they are going to give you social revolution." Tory Health Minister, Henry Willink, proposed healthcare should be free but the existing hotchpotch of hospital services should be left untouched. Today’s Con-Dem Health and Social Care Act is returning towards his plans. Labour’s individual membership climbed sharply at the end of the war, with a million members by 1950. With pressure from trade unions, workers and their families, and the ranks and junior officers of the armed forces, Labour was committed to real change after the war. "The Labour Party is a Socialist Party and proud of it," said its 1945 election manifesto. "... the best health services should be available free for all. Money must no longer be the passport to the best treatment." Labour won a huge majority in the 1945 election. Aneurin Bevan, a former Welsh miner, was appointed minister of health. Bevan’s plan to create a national health service involved nationalisation of 3,000 voluntary and municipal hospitals. There would be free hospital treatment for all. He proposed general practitioners be paid salaries, new health centres where they would be encouraged to work and controls on new GPs entering wealthier areas to promote services in poorer areas. Everyone could register with a GP and dentist, receiving free consultations and treatments. Opticians would also give examinations and prescribe glasses without charge. British Medical Association leaders strongly opposed these plans (although they did not speak for the whole medical profession). Dr Alfred Cox, a former BMA secretary, described them as a big step to dictatorship under "a medical Fuehrer". The British Medical Journal warned that it was inconceivable that "private practice as we know it today can survive as much more than a shadow of itself." (Today the BMA’s position is to the left of Labour’s!) Bevan negotiated with these leaders and made significant concessions. NHS consultants could continue private practice with private beds in NHS hospitals. GPs remained self-employed, contracting to provide services to the NHS. Hospitals remained under the control of senior managers and senior consultants, with no democratic control from the local community or health workers through their trade unions. Nevertheless, the modest involvement of local councillors on hospital boards was more than now exists with Foundation Trusts. The 1945 government’s biggest concession of all was to leave capitalism in place, only nationalising bankrupt industries (like the hospitals). Drugs and medical supplies remained private business. In fairness to Bevan, there were few effective drugs in 1948. The NHS spent £39 million on drugs in its first year (that’s £1.13 billion at today’s prices). It now spends about £12 billion a year on drugs. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the economy’s most profitable sectors, making 80% profits in some cases. It should be nationalised and integrated into the NHS with compensation only paid on the basis of proven need. Bevan expected NHS costs would fall once the untreated burden of illness was dealt with. In fact, NHS costs have risen faster than general inflation throughout its history. New drugs, joint replacements, transplants, radiotherapy, scans and much more have been developed. Improved living standards and prevention of many infectious diseases have contributed to an ageing population. Many more people now live with chronic conditions needing long-term treatment and care, leading to rising costs. Life in unequal capitalist society is still responsible for ill health, including many cancers, much mental illness and rising obesity. There is now a widening gap between the health of the richest and poorest - and their access to healthcare. Low pay, benefit cuts and the bedroom tax will force more into overcrowded, poor quality housing. Many can’t afford good food or adequate heating. The infectious diseases and malnutrition of the 1930s are set to return. Counter-reforms In 1945 the ruling class feared workers’ revolution and conceded the NHS. It was so popular that later Tory governments dared not attack it. Bosses benefited from a fitter workforce. Unemployment was very low for 25 years after the war so they needed workers back at work after illness or injury. That started to change after the 1979-81 recession, which saw unemployment soar. The decline of manufacturing industry left big business looking for alternative sources of profit. Public services have been in their eye since then. But even Thatcher took a cautious line with NHS privatisation, restricting it mostly to cleaning, laundry and catering. What held her back was fear that Labour and the unions could mobilise the tremendous support for the NHS among the working class and throw out her government. She needn’t have worried. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s New Labour accelerated down the privatisation road. Health workers and working class families have our arms tied behind our backs without a party opposing all cuts and standing for renationalisation of the NHS. Union leaders who rejected a national campaign of demonstrations and strikes to defend the NHS gave the Con-Dems confidence. As in 1921 and 1926, union weakness led to government aggression. At last, unions have organised a national demonstration in defence of the NHS on 29 September outside the Tory party conference in Manchester. This should be promoted energetically and followed by a 24-hour general strike. Despite all the negative publicity, the NHS still has tremendous support. A massive strike could be built, splitting the government apart. What was won through struggle in the past will not be given up without a fight.

In defence of the NHS

Did too many nurses treat too many people and caused the financial crisis? Quite clearly not yet the NHS is under major attack from all angles and who is going to save it is the question. I certainly wouldn’t trust labour to given their record in government the last time introducing foundation hospitals and PFI’s galore. The Keo report is out today and reveals some interesting findings. This below was in the Guardian today. “The NHS medical director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, whose investigation into 14 hospital trusts follows reports of unusually high death rates. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA The report into unusually high death rates at 14 hospitals is to reject claims that the hospitals investigated have between them killed thousands of patients through poor care. The review by the NHS medical director, Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, will dismiss the two mortality indicators that were used to justify the probe into the 14, which was launched on the day Robert Francis QC published his damning report into the Mid-Staffordshire care scandal. Keogh's report will say: "However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths." That is a reference to the two indicators – known as hospital standardised mortality ratios (HMSR) and summary hospital-level mortality indicator (SHMI) – which are used to flag up hospitals where apparently unusually high numbers of patients are dying. Both indicators were used by the Department of Health in February to justify the choice of those 14 hospitals for investigation. The 14 had had unusually high death rates in both 2010-11 and 2011-12, as judged by one or both indicators, it said. Keogh's dismissal in such strong terms of the measures comes after media reports that there were anything up to 13,000 excess or avoidable deaths at the 14 trusts that Keogh and his team of expert inspectors have been looking into. Members of the inquiry team have voiced concerns about the choice of the 14 on the basis of HMSR and SHMI data. One said they were "a very blunt instrument" for examining something as complex as "excess" mortality – that is, deaths that, according to a complicated range of factors, could potentially have been avoided if the quality of healthcare had been better. Inquiry team members – who include senior doctors, NHS leaders, patient safety experts and patient representatives – privately fear that the statement by the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, to the Commons about the report, expected on Tuesday afternoon, will give an overly negative picture of the team's findings. The report will also contrast with much of the pre-publication coverage by stressing that mortality rates in all NHS hospitals have been falling for the past 10 years, with overall mortality down by an estimated 30%. Keogh's report will also note that that improvement is even more impressive when the increasingly complex caseload faced by hospitals – driven by rising numbers of older patients and those with long-term conditions such as dementia, heart disease and breathing problems – are taken into account. The report, which Keogh will discuss with the media for the first time on Tuesday afternoon, will emphasise that staffing problems were found at all 14 trusts, and stress that the geographical isolation of many of the hospitals was a factor in that. His findings may also reopen the debate about whether the NHS should have legally backed minimum staffing levels – which supporters such as the Royal College of Nursing call "safe staffing" – in order to guarantee that set numbers of nurses are always on duty, and whether the NHS in England's need to make £20bn of efficiency savings by 2015 is forcing hospitals to cut corners and potentially endanger patients. Many of the review teams which conducted in-depth inquiries into each of the hospitals found what they regarded as too few staff. Each of the 14 trusts' individual action plans will include advice on workforce issues, especially ensuring they have enough staff that has the right qualifications. Many rely on agency staff, especially overnight and at weekends, though the inability to fill rotas can see nurses moved from where they usually work to a ward or department where there are too few available. All the 14 trusts are understood to now be looking urgently at providing safe staffing levels across their hospitals at all times, following the Keogh team's visits. The Francis report came close to suggesting minimum staffing levels and showed how inadequate staffing levels at Stafford hospital were a key factor in what the then NHS watchdog the Healthcare Commission estimated to be between 400 and 1,200 extra deaths between 2005 and 2009. Sir Richard Thompson, president of the Royal College of Physicians, which represents hospital doctors, said: "It is clear that parts of the system must change to better meet patients' needs. The NHS is struggling to cope with increasing pressures on acute services, patients with increasingly complex needs, and a breakdown of out-of-hours care. Patients' demands have changed and so our hospital services must change." Thompson said the NHS's move to offering key services seven days a week rather than five, strong clinical leadership by doctors, greater use of audit data about outcomes in key treatment areas and better collaboration between NHS staff would all help. The 14 trusts under review Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS foundation trust Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS foundation trust Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS trust Burton Hospitals NHS foundation trust Colchester Hospital University NHS foundation trust The Dudley Group NHS foundation trust East Lancashire Hospitals NHS trust George Eliot Hospital NHS trust Medway NHS foundation trust North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS trust Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS foundation trust Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS foundation trust Tameside Hospital NHS foundation trust United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS trust

Support the London wide save our NHS demonstration

This weekend see’s nother step towards saving the NHS. A London wide demonstration, this must be just the start. The chair of the National Health Service (NHS) regulator has warned that pressure on Accident and Emergency (A&E) units is "out of control... [and] totally unsustainable". David Prior, head of the Care Quality Commission, was reported as saying it meant he could not guarantee against any future scandals similar to the highly publicised tragedy of Mid Staffordshire NHS. This increasing pressure has led to a number of A&Es struggling to hit targets for waiting times. Bizarrely, Mr Prior's response to this appears to be to call for fewer, not more, resources. He told the King's Fund health think tank that "if we don't start closing acute beds, the system is going to fall over". He believes that the increased pressure is due to people "misusing" A&E services for less serious health problems, which they would apparently be less likely to do if they knew there were less resources! Anyone who thinks about this, even briefly, will see the lie in it. Clearly, those who do not actually need the services will never be sent on to acute beds; however if beds are cut it will be the patients who do need these services that will be left waiting for longer. The BBC's health correspondent Nick Triggle, reporting on the story, mentioned some more believable reasons for the increased demand on A&Es, including: "A rise in the number of people with chronic conditions, such as heart disease, that end up having emergencies; the ageing population; and problems accessing out-of-hours GP care." This shows the need for more staff and resources, not less. Triggle also made a fleeting but telling reference to "staffing problems". 6,000 nursing jobs across the NHS have been cut since the Con-Dems came to power, with that number expected to double by 2015. Closures This story also raises further concerns over plans to close four A&Es across north-west London. Communities covered by Ealing, Central Middlesex, Charring Cross, and Hammersmith hospitals have been campaigning against the closure of their A&E services, which would mean in an emergency they would have to travel to one of the remaining A&Es at five other hospitals covering the wider area. How five A&Es are expected to take on the previous workload of nine while maintaining waiting list targets is not clear, although perhaps a hidden agenda is revealed later in Mr Prior's speech when he blamed the NHS's apparent problems on the lack of a health market. Aside from the fact that an internal market has existed, and has been undermining the NHS, for over 20 years now, this also hints at the future of healthcare in north-west London, and nationally. When the remaining hospitals struggle with the additional demand and become "failing" hospitals, the bloodsuckers of the market will step in. This is so much easier now under the Health and Social Care Act. No one who works for the NHS would claim it is perfect, but we must fight to defend and improve it, as opposed to running it into the ground to be replaced with a system that puts profits over patients, which is the true aim of scare stories like this. The London demonstration (see box) can help pull together health workers and campaigners as we have seen in many other local demos. However, these must be followed by a national demonstration to focus the defence of the NHS. The trade unions must take the lead in this campaign, including building for coordinated industrial action and a 24-hour general strike, to stop the government's destructive agenda. Defend London's NHS All-London demo organised by trade unions and health campaigners. Saturday 18 May. Assemble 12 noon, Jubilee Gardens, Waterloo. National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN) Defend the NHS - new bulletin Downloadable resource - available at: http://shopstewards.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NSSN-NHS-Bulletin3-1.pdf article taken from www.socialistparty.org.uk

Unison NEC elections, vote for socialist candidates and reclaim your union!

Big elections are coming up for Unison. One of the most frustrating unions to organise within but as Marxist’s we do not shy away from working within reactionary unions and Unison is one of the worst. But we don’t just sit there and moan about how bad it is we are actively fighting within the union within its limited democratic structures to change the union. Unison holds the key to many workers and to ultimately saving the NHS. Unisons role in this so far has been pathetic we know this. But by shouting from the sidelines gets us nowhere. The unison 4 who were 4 socialist party members witch hunted for organising within Unison and due to their politics and opposing Unison’s links to the labour party and wishing to change this found themselves victimised and hounded. But things do not have to be this way we can change this union to win it back for its members to become a fighting union along with other left unions like the PCS, RMT, FBU and so on. Elections for Unison's national executive (NEC) start on 22 April and run until 24 May. Members of the Socialist Party are standing, alongside candidates organised in United Left, as part of the Reclaim the Union election slate, in the seats listed. The Con-Dem government is determined to destroy the NHS and the welfare state. This must be resisted by the full strength of Unison, other unions and local communities. We need an NEC leadership that is determined to win. The NEC has a responsibility to organise and plan a coordinated fightback instead of leaving branches to fight alone. The employers are saying take cuts in pay and conditions or face more job losses or we will pull out of the national pay agreements. However, the union is wrong to believe that the way to protect our national agreements is to give away some of our rights, as they have recently done in the health service. ________________________________________ The Socialist Party believes that:- • Unison should organise a national demonstration to save our NHS with the support of other unions. • Unison should stop funding Labour if it refuses to fight the cuts and to stop the destruction of our NHS. ________________________________________ The Reclaim the Union candidates are: (Socialist Party members are asterisked). • National black members seats: Female: Monique Hirst*, April Ashley*; male: Hugo Pierre* • National young members seat: Greta Holmes • Eastern region: Female: Claire Wormald • East Midlands region: Female: Jean Thorpe*; male: Adrian Picton* • Greater London region: Female: Helen Davies, Marshajane Thompson; male: Jon Rogers; reserved seat: Gundula Seidel • North West region: General seat: Tony Wilson; female: Bernadette Gallagher, Karen Reissmann; male: Roger Bannister* • Scotland region: General seat: Jim McFarlane*; male: Duncan Smith, • South East region: Female: Jacqui Berry*, Diana Leach; male: Paul Couchman* • South West region: Male: Bernie Parkes • Cymru/Wales region: Male: Jamie Davis* • West Midlands region: Male: Dave Auger* • Yorkshire and Humberside region: Female: Helen Jenner; male: Mike Forster*; reserved: Vicky Perrin* • Health Care service group: Female: Helen Ridett*, Suzy Franklin; male: Mark Boothroyd; general: Gary Freeman* • Higher Education service group: Female: Tomasa Bullen; general: Max Watson • Local Government service group: Female: Phoebe Watkins, Sonya Howard; male: Glenn Kelly*; general: Paul Holmes • Transport service group, water and environment: John Jones • Community: Female: Janet Bryan

Save Lewisham hospital’s A and E, could be your hospital next!

Last Saturday saw one of the biggest local demonstrations in south London in protest to save the local A and E at Lewisham which is threatened with closure. Over 25 thousand marched on the day and from what I’ve gathered was a tremendous atmosphere with young and old on the demo. This was a real community demo. The scale of support for the campaign was shown by the presence of the local football team Millwall's bus at the closing rally. Such was size of the march that it had to move off about half an hour early so that everyone could join. Despite it causing traffic to come to a standstill, many drivers tooted their support for the protest. Among the many union banners were the National Shop Stewards Network and Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. This was the second demo organised against recommendations in a paper authored by Special Administrator Matthew Kershaw who was commissioned by the Con-Dem government to do a hatchet job on NHS services in South London. It was in anticipation of 1 February when Kershaw will submit his plans to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt for rubber-stamping. Petitions, letters and marches have been organised, but these alone will not save Lewisham Hospital. Today we hear that the A and E services at Lewisham are to be down graded. The A&E department at Lewisham hospital in south-east London is to be downgraded and made smaller as part of cost-cutting measures. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt also said the maternity unit at Lewisham would be replaced with a midwife-led facility. The cuts aim to help tackle debts of £150m at the neighbouring South London Healthcare NHS Trust Jos Bell, a Save Lewisham Hospital campaigner, called the announcement "a complete travesty". She rejected Mr Hunt's estimate that journey times to other Ages in the area would only take one minute longer. Ms Bell, who collapsed with heart and respiratory failure in 2006, added: "I'm only alive because Lewisham is where it is." Lewisham's mayor, Steve Bullock, said: "The secretary of state is riding roughshod over the people of Lewisham. This is not the end of the matter. "I do not believe that the Trust Special Administrator had the statutory power to make recommendations about Lewisham Hospital and the secretary of state therefore has no power to implement them. "I will be talking to our lawyers and we will also of course need to talk to our colleagues at Lewisham Hospital in order to fully understand the implications of Mr Hunt's statement." SO on the demo given all this Socialist Party members on the demo raised the idea that our strategy must be based on the health trade unions and pressure on them to ballot their members for strike action to save the NHS, solidly backed by the community. A workers' occupation of Lewisham Hospital could be organised to stop equipment being removed and facilities run down. Over 2,500 Socialist Party leaflets calling for strike action to defend Lewisham A&E were taken by demonstrators. This attempt to attack jobs and services at Lewisham Hospital is not the first. During 2006 the then Labour government proposed the closure of A&E, maternity and paediatric services. Socialist Party former councillors Chris Flood and Ian Page launched a petition opposing the attacks to build up pressure on MPs and councillors. Chris Flood proposed a motion to the council for 'referring back' Labour's outrageous plans. Although Labour and Lib Dem councillors opposed this, pressure eventually forced the government to back down and the hospital was saved then. What’s clear is this is just the start and the battle to save Lewisham A and E will need a serious fightback including the workers if it is to succeed. Labours opportunist role in this has not gone unnoticed either their last governments role in PFI schemes up and down the country has been raised time after time in this campaign The hypocrisy must be exposed having Tories march on demo’s to save their local NHS when the national government is ripping it apart is a disgrace. But now this time round it are Labour councillors and MPs who are giving lip service to the campaign to oppose the closures, while at the same time pushing through £28 million of council cuts to jobs and services over the next three years. They are doing the Con-Dems' dirty work. Recognising the links between all the cuts to jobs and public services, one street cleaner clearing up after the demo proudly displayed a Socialist Party Save our NHS placard in his cart. At the end of the march, demonstrators were queuing up to sign the Socialist Party petition in defence of NHS services in south London. They recognised that we need to save all NHS services and not allow the campaign to be just about defending Lewisham A&E at the expense of other NHS services in south London. With thanks to Susanna Farley and Chris Newby For extracts from the socialist this week which can be read at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/750/16046/30-01-2013/nhs-workers-resist-cuts

Solidarity with NHS workers in mid Yorks on a 5 day strike this week

While the NHS is ripped apart little in the way of industrial fight back is forthcoming from the unions which represent workers in the NHS. There is one exception though this week in mid Yorkshire Unison members will be on strike for a full 5 days this week. They will need your support and hopefully this can give confidence to other Unison workers and branch’s to take action if their leadership will not. Below I republish the press release that the local branch put out a few weeks back now. Thank you for your support for our strike against ‘downbandings’ . We have received £1000′s in solidarity donations and 100′s of messages of support from TU branches and individuals across the country. So far our members have taken strike action on 1st November and 20th – 22nd November. Over 500 staff has taken strike action. The Trust is still intending to press ahead with dismissing and re engaging our members on lower pay bands. During our negotiation meetings they refuse to discuss alternatives to the downbandings and insist on discussing only the length of protection paid. Following downbanding. Their latest offer of 18-24 months protection was unanimously rejected at meetings of the members last week. The Trust refused to discuss the new Admin ‘model’ at a meeting last Wednesday. Yesterday both UNISON and Unite gave the Trust notice of a 5 day strike starting next Monday – 28th January. Our members are determined to resist the cuts in their pay and the attacks on the Agenda for Change agreement. We know we can rely on the support of people like you, Trade Unionists and the General Public. Please send messages of support to this email address. midyorksunison@aol.co.uk financial donations to our hardship fund can be sent to UNISON mid Yorkshire Health 20671 c/c Trade Union Office Pinderfields Hospital Aberford Road Wakefield WF1 4DG Yours in Solidarity Adrian O’Malley

2013 the year the fight back to save the NHS is stepped up

The NHS is still facing a huge crisis due to huge funding cuts and privatisation. Big struggles were waged last year in 2012 but 2013 the battle to save ourNHS needs to be stepped up hugely. The tories that have always had it in for the NHS due to the fact the rich don’t use it and see it as unnecessary to the progression of capitalism. Recently the 2013 'State of the Nation' poll found huge support for the NHS and 72% agreed that: "we must do everything we can to maintain it". The NHS is said to be more valued to our nation than the royal family I think that tells you a lot about people’s feelings today. Never before has this support been so needed. The Con-Dems' attacks so far include 5,000 nurses' jobs axed, a 4% cut in the money hospitals will receive for treatment in 2013 and plans for hospital closures. But both health workers and the public reject this. The strike by Unison members in the Mid-Yorkshire Hospital Trust against 'down-banding' pay cuts is an inspiring example. Branch secretary Adrian O'Malley pointed out that: "workers will support action to defend the NHS when a lead is given. We've recruited 200 new union members which show what can be done". A massive campaign in Lewisham, south London, is fighting threats to the local hospital. After a very successful protest march in November, another demonstration is planned for 26 January. Health axe-man Matthew Kershaw recommended to Tory health secretary Jeremy Hunt that the South London Healthcare NHS Trust should be broken up. Some services, he said, would carry on under new administration, others would perish. He asked Hunt to order the closure of Lewisham hospital's A&E department, used by 125,000 people a year. Kershaw added an extra insult in his report by insisting that Lewisham's maternity unit should become a midwife-led 'birthing unit' i.e. one with no obstetricians or paediatricians. This is fine if there are likely to be no complications in labour. But more than half of the 4,400 pregnant women who use Lewisham hospital are classed as at 'high risk' of complications. And as with the A&E closure, neighbouring hospitals will come under increasing pressure. Both Kings College and Queen Elizabeth hospitals have recently been diverting ambulances carrying women on the verge of giving birth because local cutbacks mean they cannot cope. The cuts measures would lose the hospital £195 million by 2015-16. All in order to safeguard the huge investments and profits of the private PFI firms whose greed caused the Trust's bankruptcy in the first place. With a battle bus touring the region, door-to-door leafleting and leaflets aimed at fans of local football teams, the community campaign has done good work. Staff at Lewisham hospital and other units facing attacks wants to get involved - even when their own union leaderships try to hold them back. Socialist Party members are encouraging nurses and other NHS workers to press hard within their union branches for a workplace ballot for industrial action. Health workers would be widely supported if they went on strike to save our local hospital and the beleaguered NHS. The Socialist Party demands on the NHS include: • No cuts, closures or job losses in the NHS • End privatisation. Scrap PFI and refuse to pay back the 'debt' • Nationalise the pharmaceutical companies under democratic control and integrate them into the NHS • For mass action to defend the NHS, including a 24-hour general strike With extracts taken from this week’s article in the socialist http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/748/15983/16-01-2013/mass-action-to-save-our-nhs

Battle to save the NHS continues

Even if the mainstream media will not cover the carving up of our NHS and feel that what the church do or don’t do is far more important reporting then I guesses we’ll just have to do it ourselves. Over the last year the NHS has changed and is constantly changing. Next year 2013 is set to see the introduction of the Health and Social care bill which will see the end of the NHS as we know it. 49% of beds will go to private patients with huge multi billion contracts being put out for tender to private companies such as Virgin care, Circle Bupa and more. This is worrying times indeed. Just in Lewisham the other weekend there was a big demonstration of around 10 thousand workers, campaigners and members of the public all very much aware what is going on and what could happen if we don’t fight now. On Saturday 24 November, defying cold driving rain, up to 10,000 residents and staff marched to defend their local hospital. A south London nurse reports. The atmosphere was electric as the demonstration brought Lewisham High Street to a standstill. Drivers tooted their horns enthusiastically. The Unison, NUT, and Unite union banners headed up the march. Also prominent was the National Shop Stewards Network banner. Unison's London region swung behind the demonstration, giving health staff confidence to march en masse. Feelings are strong over this planned closure. 250,000 Lewisham residents know that this situation is critical. People may die if they are conveyed longer distances to either Woolwich or Kings College A&E for emergency treatment. Maternity and other services are also at risk. The administrator, Matthew Kershaw and the new Woolwich and Lewisham chief executives must be held to account for this devastation. Staff and patients chanted "Save Lewisham a&E. Save the NHS". They see shutting their local casualty as just one in a string of planned assaults by this government. It's all one NHS. NHS managers, ministers and MPs use divide and rule tactics, talking about different areas of the NHS as if they were separate worlds. All NHS cuts must be vehemently opposed. This casualty department meets all its performance targets and has one of the lowest rates of hospital acquired infection in the NHS. Yet this state of the art department, that had just seen £12 million worth of investment, is closing. And while our NHS is being disassembled bit by bit, the wealthy controllers of Private Finance Initiative schemes (which are wrecking hospitals) are getting richer than ever! Platform speakers highlighted the unfairness of the planned closure. At an open staff meeting at Lewisham hospital following the march, health workers and supporters spoke on where to take this epic struggle. NUT national executive member Martin Powell-Davies assured Lewisham NHS staff that they would get great support if strike action followed this great show of community involvement. Health trade unionists should call for emergency branch meetings and put forward motions for NHS staff to be balloted for strike action. If we strike we can win. If we do not, we could lose a key casualty department forever! Many health workers may think they cannot strike but they can, with the unions planning for emergency cover in the event of a strike. If industrial action is coordinated across health union branches the fight to keep Lewisham A&E open will be victorious and strike a blow against all public sector cuts. Also Admin and clerical workers at the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals Trust have been fighting attempts to cut their pay and conditions through well-supported strike action. Trust bosses claim that these attacks on low-paid workers are necessary in order to make savings of £24 million by the new financial year and achieve Foundation Trust status in 2014. Payments to the consortium which built the £311 million PFI hospitals in Wakefield and Pontefract are costing the Trust over £40 million annually. But our Unison branch has long argued that the only real solution to the Trust's financial crisis is to re-nationalise its PFI hospitals, cancel all debts to the consortium which built them and open Trust accounts to full public scrutiny. We will oppose all cuts and privatisation demanded by the Health and Social Care Act. We are lending our full support to the 'Save Our Local Hospital Services' community-led campaign which aims to maintain full services at our three hospitals, and bring all privatised services back under full public ownership. Such local campaigns should be backed by all health unions and linked into a national campaign to save the NHS. With extracts from this weeks socialist

Keep profiteers out of our NHS! Mass movement needed now!

High-profile NHS hospitals in England are to be encouraged by the government to set up profit-making branches abroad to help fund services in the UK. An agency will aim to link hospitals such as Great Ormond Street with foreign governments that want access to British-run health services. Investment would have to be drawn from hospitals' private UK work, but with profits ploughed back into the NHS. A patients' group said the move was a "distraction" at a time of "upheaval". The drive, building on an initiative first started under the Labour government, is set to be be launched by the Department of Health and UK Trade and Investment this autumn. The BBC understands the initiative is unlikely to involve regular district or general hospitals but would target world-renowned hospitals like children's hospital Great Ormond Street, the Royal Marsden and Guy's and St Thomas'. 'Benefit patients' It would mirror schemes such as that of Moorfields Eye Hospital in London, which in 2007 built a unit of the same name in Dubai. In 2010, Labour's Health Secretary Andy Burnham set up NHS Global to help the health service make the most of the global market for healthcare and the coalition now wants to build on t This is a continuation and a first sign of what the health and social care bill passed this year by the con-dem government is going to do to our health service. Quite clearly many capitalists here in Britain and around the globe see the NHS as a world institution and a huge opening for a big profiteering exercise here. Take no notice of labour either though they were the ones who brought in such ideas of a global NHS and Andy Burnham their shadow health secretary was the one who over saw this so we will take no support or lectures off labor they are up to their eyes in PFI and marketisation of the NHS. We must be aware of what is going on arm ourselves with the facts and join up local campaigns with a national campaign to save our NHS which truly is under threat now. If it wasn’t before it is now. Trade unions have been pathetic on this so far a national campaign linking up all unions’ workers, anti cuts groups, save NHS groups and anyone else who wishes to throw their weight behind saving this. But be under no illusion this is going to take a huge effort. As I tweeted on twitter last night it was mass working class pressure and action which won the NHS for the working class it’s going to take a similar mass pressure and militant action to win this back. This must be part of the NSSN’s calls for a 24 hour public + private general strike. It’s time to step up the fight now redouble our efforts to save the NHS and stop all the cuts and remove this government intent on taking back all the gains we’ve ever made.

PFI = Profit from Illness, drive profiteering out of our NHS!

Private finance initiative has been crippling our NHS for decades now. With many hospitals now a certain hospital trust in south London facing difficulties it’s time to end this profit mad system and re nationalize the NHS and kick out the profiteers from our health care once and for all.


The South London Healthcare NHS Trust has already lost £150m

The trust runs three hospitals and has run up deficits of more than £150m over the past three years. It is thought to be on course to lose between £150m and £375m by 2017.
Our staff has worked hard for patients and in spite of significant financial issues we are extremely proud we now have among the lowest mortality and infection rates in the country

Its chief executive was informed on Monday night that the trust is likely to be put into the "unsustainable providers regime", which was introduced by the last Labor government but never before used.

The administrator will take over the board and recommend measures to the Health Secretary to put the trust's finances on a sustainable basis. Which to me means nothing but cuts and a contraction of services offered and a round of redundancies for the staff.

Hospitals run by the trust include Queen Mary's in Sidcup, the Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich and the Princess Royal in Bromley.

It is clear to me to save the NHS PFI must be rejected out of hand and all services brought back into proper democratic public ownership. With a trade union lead campaign with local communities and the mass of the working class behind a campaign to save the NHS we can save it only if we act now. Each day a further piece of our NHS is lost if we don’t act now it’ll be gone in a few years time. A distant memory.

PFI was begun in the early 1990s by the then Tory government. It was attacked by Labour when in opposition, but then massively accelerated under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's governments. Today there are hundreds of PFI projects covering hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, police stations and prisons.
Instead of a public body building a new facility using public money, albeit through a contract with a private builder or developer, PFI involves a private sector developer or consortium doing the whole job. It borrows the money (often at higher rates of interest than the government would), builds the project and then charges a fee for 25 to 40 years for maintaining the buildings and usually also providing various services.
Labour spokespersons such as Patricia Hewitt and Alan Milburn condemned such PFI projects as 'backdoor privatization' when in opposition. In government, however, as health secretaries, they claimed it was the 'only game in town'. And curiously, after government, they (and many other Labour ex-ministers) got lucrative private sector jobs and consultancies, many in the same areas where they had been ministers.
The Financial Times estimated in 2007 that, after ten years of New Labour, the total capital value of PFI contracts across the UK was £68 billion - but that the total which would be given to the private companies involved in those contracts, by the time they were finished, would be £215 billion!
Three years later, in November 2010, the total payment obligation for PFI contracts in the UK had rocketed to £267 billion. And in the first year of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition a further 61 PFI schemes, with a capital value of £7 billion were approved. PFI has become a 'milch cow' for big business in the public sector.

Complete over reaction to Ukuncut’s street party protest outside Nick Cleggs home

Yesterday members of UKuncut a loose organisation targeted Nick Clegg and his home to hold a peaceful street party outside his home. This was not in anyway endangering anyone at all Nick Clegg wasn’t even in and his kids went. Ever since we have seen a complete backlash from the liberals and other such folk who claim to be on the left.

In my view no one was hurt and that wasn’t ever the intention. We may have disagreements with Ukuncut and their methods involved in protest but they are at least getting out there and trying to raise the issues which are affecting ordinary people in an imaginative way. Ok its not your average protest and isn’t march from A to B which we have been used to but fair play for having the guts to try something different and new. It got the news headlines for perhaps the wrong reasons but you can blame them for that. I think the over reaction to the fact that Nick cleggs kids could have been at home and would have felt threatened is nonsense and completely miss’s the point of the protest.

It is clear the journalists and those jumping up and down at this would be the ones who would be opposed to any sort of real fairness in society with ordinary people having a say and protest in their minds is only ok when it doesn’t inconvenience anyone. Well that’s been tried time after time and has not worked. This protest may not have worked but fair play to those at UKuncut they got off their armchairs and did something which few seem to be as we speak. Groups like UKuncut have sprung up precisely because the labour party and the labour movement too have not offered an alternative yet and people are being forced to go it alone.

You can hardly tell me that the trebling of tuition fees, selling of our NHS, some of the deepest harshest brutal cuts we have ever seen on the disabled among much much more is eve remotely comparable to an apparent threatening protest outside Nick Cleggs house. It’s frankly laughable.

Some observations from a NHS health worker on the risk register

undearneath i publish a special guest post from a comrade who works in the NHS and holds the service close to her heart. her name is helen ridett a proud member of the socialist party like myself and i'm more than happy to share with you her thoughts on the NHS risk register she has kindly let me have to share with you all. Hope they make a echo and get shared far and wide to help people understand what is to happen to our NHS.

Some Observations on The NHS Risk Register…



The government is proceeding with this bill blindly not knowing the impact of recent amendments to the bill. They don’t really know how much these changes will cost or whether they can afford to implement the new ones, all during a period when the country is in masses of debt. The bill does not guarantee that the treasury will be able to get new savings i.e. efficiencies out of the NHS when the system is put into place



New NHS structures are being created and old ones dismantled and no one knows whether the old or the new teams will control the budget and when the Gps’ will be in a position to take over holding it. Also no one really knows who will be accountable if things go wrong as there are no clear lines of responsibility. This means that if things fall apart and the new NHS system doesn’t work everyone will point the finger at everyone else and there will be no one to take responsibility. If, for eg; a private company takes over a community health team and a patient suffers harm or neglect and that same company then goes bust what happens then? Where does the patient or their relative get redress during the transition to the new system?



The register highlights that GPs are not trained properly to either hold the budgets or to buy the care that you and I might need in future. When GP’s are spending their time training for this new job they will have less time to spend with patients. The GP’s haven’t even reached an agreement with the government regarding how they will operate within the new system



It is worth noting that if the new system falls apart or doesn’t work there are no plans in place to deal with emergencies that may arise off the back of this and there appears to be no fall back plans



Staff morale will be low because of the changes and with commissioning and senior management staff at risk of loosing their jobs but being expected to dig their own graves by setting up the new system. Frontline NHS Staff are already being shifted from post to pillar around the NHS and staff may be redeployed to sites miles away from training and occupational health facilities. This problem is likely to get far worse as the NHS gets more fragmented and bits of it get taken over by more and more private firms (any qualified provider). Industrial relations are getting increasingly strained and unions may have no choice but to ballot for industrial action if the pay and conditions of NHS staff are attacked even more. Unnecessary and awkward redeployment plans add complication to an already complex situation.



Healthcare records will also become an open book as the Health and Social Care bill is going to loosen the regulations and make sharing our personal information much easier to accommodate ‘any qualified provider’. In what appears to be a chaotic, less regulated and less accountable system change patient confidentiality will be an early casualty.



The risk register also seems to readily admit that patients are not being listened to during consultations and this problem is likely to accelerate thus giving the lie to the catchphrase ‘no care about me without me’.

The NHS is not lost, we can still win!

With so many feeling the NHS is seemingly lost if it goes through the houses of parliament and many feeling dejected we must remind ourselves that the poll tax was made law before it was defeated along with Margaret Thatcher and her Tory government .
It is nonsense to tell people we only have so many days to save the NHS or if the lords don’t save us no one will. Some have even started calling for us to lobby the queen to save the NHS, yes you heard that right the sodding queen!!

Unbelievable you may think but sadly true and the desperate state of people is clear their petitions and emails to their MP’s have not worked as we pointed out unsurprisingly we need more militant action now moving on to the industrial plain.

But to start with a mass national demonstration to bring all the forces together on a similar scale to march 26th last year and then use the threat of strike action as a tool to force the government back on this.
I don’t for one moment have any illusions that the labour party or unison are interested in a real battle after all it was much of the same labour party policies that got the NHS to where it is today so they cannot be trusted. We must do it alone with trade unions willing to fight a proper battle and community activists and NHS users to all come together to fight to the very end on this. More of the same wont work we need to escalate the action and put a shot across the government’s bow that we mean business and not letting our NHS go lightly.

It is key now that we start thinking of standing nurses, doctors and medical workers in elections not under labour but as TUSC or independents to gain a political voice. I have already read some are thinking of doing this as an act of revenge on the government. The vehicle already exists for this to happen with TUSC workers can move on to the political plain and mould TUSC into a fighting campaigning electoral force that can raise the banner of the NHS.


The NHS can still be saved we must not get demoralised or dejected but keep on fighting and step up the campaign in every town and city across the country. Leading to mass national industrial action if need be.

Let’s make the NHS Cameron’s poll tax and have the Tories out as soon as we can!

Millions being wasted on medicines, provide for need not profit in the NHS

As the NHS privatisation bill makes its way through parliament which looks likely to win support their from the 3 capitalist parties. A news item came to my attention
The NHS in the South Central region says wasted medicines are costing it £20m a year.

Health chiefs said the money lost across NHS Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Isle of Wight could pay for 785 more nurses.

Unused or partially used medicines cannot be recycled and have to be thrown away.

An NHS spokesman said patients should think about what they were ordering and only ask for what they needed.

He added: "Any other medicines can be dispensed when needed at a later date."

Nationally it is believed people store about £90 million worth of unused prescription medicines at any one tim


Further proof i'd say taht there is huge waste in competition and further dose's of competition introducing more market forces into our NHS will result in more results like this. Leading to waste and more bureaucracy .

The NHS and medicine should be produced and services met with the idea of meeting peoples needs not creating vast waste in competition sake for the benifit of a fews profits.

This NHS bill mthe government wants to put forward will increase the chances of this sort of event happening if thebill is not stopped.

Only united mass action on the scale we havent seen for a long time with trade unions, workers and service users with strike action a threat at the heart of it can defeat this bill and save our NHS.

Drop the bill!, mass action needed to save the NHS

As Nye Bevan famously said the NHS will be around for as long as there are people willing to fight for it. Well today in 2012 with the health and social bill making its way through the lords at present the signs do not look good. But medical groups and workers are rising to the task in hand.

The National Health Service (NHS) is being broken apart by the hammer blows raining down on it from the Con-Dem government. Huge job cuts and closures of hospital wards and departments, including Accident and Emergency, are wreaking havoc. On top of this, the widely criticised Con-Dems' Health and Social Care Bill will accelerate the privatisation process in the NHS.
How the NHS is being undermined:
'Efficiency savings' ie cuts. The Royal College of Nursing said last November that 56,000 jobs have been axed in the last two years as part of the current government's drive to achieve £20-£30 billion of 'efficiency savings'.
Privatisation. Begun by John Major's Tory government in the 1990s, most non-medical NHS staff have been outsourced to private contractors. The resulting job cuts have meant a deterioration in cleaning and other vital services. And a fortnight ago an entire hospital, Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire, was taken over by a for-profit private company, Circle.
Heralded by Labour's Tony Blair, Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts - under which hospitals are built and maintained - are licences for private corporations to make vast profits at the expense of NHS funds.
Mega-expensive PFI schemes have put 22 health trusts in jeopardy of becoming bankrupt. But instead of scrapping these rip-off schemes, health secretary Andrew Lansley has agreed to subsidise the contracts with £1.5 billion of public money!
The move to Foundation Trust hospitals (another Labour inspired scheme) will increase 'competition' between hospitals for resources and lead to more cuts and closures. Under the Health and Social Care Bill self-governing Foundation Trusts will also be allowed to raise 49% of funds through non-NHS work. In other words, prioritising higher fee-paying private patients over NHS patients.
A leaked NHS report last year spelt out how private companies will direct the commissioning of patient services when 80% of the health budget is transferred to GP consortia under the government's Health and Social Care Bill. A clear admission that the Con-Dems intend to privatise the NHS.
The Socialist Party calls on the trade unions and community NHS campaigns to unite and fight to stop Lansley's Bill and the threats to our NHS and instead demand a fully funded, publicly owned and democratically run health service.

Kill the Bill. Stop Tory health minister Andrew Lansley and the Con-Dems turning the clock back on health care in Britain. We want free, accessible, high quality and publicly funded healthcare
No cuts, closures or job losses in the NHS
No mergers, or any other 'reorganisation', on anything other than clinical grounds
End the postcode lottery. Fully-funded, high quality, health care should be accessible in every area
Kick big business out of the NHS. End PFI and refuse to pay the debt
Nationalise the pharmaceutical companies under democratic control and integrate them into the NHS
For mass action to defend the NHS with trade union strike action at its heart

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just the start of the fightback whih needs to be ramped up. With the threat of privatisation at its core this piece of tory legeslation threatens the whole idea of a national health service for the benifit of all.
Part and parcel with this profiteering are the enormous cuts. £20 billion of so-called savings planned since 2010 are ravaging the NHS.

But resistance is growing. Health workers' trade unions and organisations, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, with members numbering hundreds of thousands have come out against it.

Given that what is posed is the total destruction of the NHS this is not surprising. Even a survey by relatively wealthy governments in the OECD recognises the NHS as one of the world's best health systems that has been improving patient care for years.


We have seen the labour party and Ed Milibandwagon come out in recent days to jump on the ground swell of feeling against this bill ratehr opportunistically in my view.
Labour leader Ed Miliband is opportunistically attempting to claim the mantle of hero of the NHS but has no effective strategy to defend the biggest reform ever won by the working class in Britain.

"Now is the time for people of all parties and of none, the professions, the patients and now peers in the House of Lords to work together to try to stop this bill." But disability rights campaigners can explain how far opposition in the Lords got them in the campaign to oppose the vicious Welfare Reform Bill. MPs thanked the Lords for their amendments and ignored them, passing that bill up for royal assent, effectively making it law.

Like the bashing of bankers' bonuses Miliband has hit on a rich seam of anger among working class people. But Miliband and his party are not against all 'reform'. He has described Labour's reforms "including using the private sector where appropriate" as the reform the NHS needs. Labour is a big business party which, when in power for 13 years, went very far in preparing the ground for Lansley's bill through massive PFI privatisation and marketisation of the health service. So whatever happens do not let labou off teh hook here and think they are on our side as they are not the last 13 years showed exactly that.

To save the NHS we must be serious about defending it to start with not looking for short term political gains and boosts in certain polls and right wing tabloids but principled resistance to one of the greatest organisations this country has ever produced. If this goes and the break up of the NHS is started future generations will not forgive us for idolly

standing by while it happened.

Lets unite now to defend one of Britains best known treasures.