Grey Haired Manky Codger

I'm sure many of my readers may well have already seen this, but I needed to share it. My disgust at Andrew Lansley and his privatisation plans are no secret, so obviously a rap about him and how bad his plans are was always going to be a favourite of mine. No doubt it will be sung many times at the march on the 26th in London.

The Libyan Conundrum

Libya is something of a conundrum for many in the West, and indeed those in the region itself. How best to support democratic revolutions without imposing regime change, which was so disastrous in Iraq? And when that revolution falters, and the regime in power threatens genocide, what measures are acceptable to take without being seen to once again be meddling in the Middle East?

It's important to note that this is less polarising than Iraq, the UN resolution and circumstances on the ground see to that. There are people who care about the rights and cultures of other people on both sides of the argument, we just disagree on whether on not this No-Fly Zone is the right way to protect the Libyan people. I'm of the view that it is.

I think for all the arguments that will inevitably come to light about our hypocrisy in intervening in Libya but not in places like Bahrain, about our interventions invariably being linked to oil, and about the other hypocrisy of now attacking the very weaponry we once sold to Colonel Gaddafi, those questions are of no importance or interest to the people of Benghazi who were seemingly on the brink of a brutal massacre just as the UN resolution was passed.

We can rightly ask questions about our general policy in the Middle East at another time, or even alongside Libya, but I don't think we can use our past mistakes as the sole reason to stay out of Libya. We should treat each case individually as it comes along.

It was clear to the world that many Libyans would never be safe under Col. Gaddafi's rule, we had the support of others in the region, and crucially waited for multilateral involvement before intervening. Those facts make it compare favourably to other western interventions of the past.

I understand the arguments against our intervention, but simply could not see an alternative which did not involve the slaughter of innocent civilians. Yes, other places are in a similar situation, but our inability to help everyone shouldn't stop us helping anyone. And I am not accusing those who oppose intervention of being heartless towards the Libyan people, far from it, it is just that I just could not personally have accepted us standing on the sidelines on this occasion.

What we must now focus on is not whether or not the NFZ was the right way to go, but where we go from here. There are still massive questions that need answering. What constitutes mission accomplished? What happens if we're left with stalemate, Gaddafi in the West and the rebels in the East, how long can we maintain the NFZ? Will this only finish when Gaddafi is killed, and if not then how can you ensure peace with him still in power?

Big and important questions, the answers to which will determine whether Libya is the turning point for western interventionism, or just another grubby black mark on our relations with  the Middle East.

For a good post that disagrees with me and is against our intervention, visit this blog.

Tuition Fees plan in meltdown.

We're now beginning to see the fruits of the ill thought out and ideological increase of tuition fees, as universities line up one by one to ignore the governments plea and charge the full £9000. 

Charging the full amount was supposed to be the exception, but it's fast becoming the rule as we discover that the Office for Fair Access which was set up to monitor the new levels is completely impotent to stop universities charging what they wish so long as they make a courtesy gesture towards the very worst off students.

All of this comes on top of the news that some graduates will end up paying back twice the amount that they borrowed for tuition fees, with many never being able to pay them back fully.

No university wants to be seen as the 'cheap and tacky' option, and so charging £9000 s a way for them to appear to be good quality. And with their funding being slashed, who can blame them?

Here's the article from the Independent.

Doctors harden their stance.

I couldn't make a return to blogging without first talking about the BMA meeting that took place two days ago, where doctors came out against just about every single major part of the Tory Health Bill. I call it the 'Tory' bill because it's now also clear that their partners in coalition object to it as well as everyone in health care.

Here's a selection of the motions that were approved by the meeting:

- That this Meeting believes that the current plans for reform are too extreme and too rushed and will negatively impact on patient care. We call upon the Health Secretary to:- i) call a halt to the proposed top down reorganisation of the NHS; ii) withdraw the Health and Social Care Bill; iii) consider and act on the criticisms and advice from the medical profession that were collected during the White Paper consultation; iv) adopt an approach of evolution not revolution regarding any changes to the NHS in England.

- That this Meeting believes that the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill were not part of the election manifesto of either of the coalition parties, and calls on the government to accept that:- i) there is no electoral mandate for the introduction of such changes.

- That this Meeting deplores the government’s use of misleading and inaccurate information to denigrate the NHS, and to justify the Health and Social Care Bill reforms, and believes that:- i) the Health Bill is likely to worsen health outcomes as a result of fragmentation and competition.

As well as these more general points, each individual part of the bill was itself dissected and rejected. And whilst the BMA called for the withdrawal to the bill, it stopped short of opposing it in its entireity. However, people watching the meeting online will have noticed this was more of a result of the Chairman's plea to not tie the negotiators hands rather than any particularly good parts of the bill, the proposer of the motion to oppose the entire motion got the loudest standing ovation of the entire day.

Equally, Andrew Lansley was only spared a No Confidence vote because Hamish Meldrum appealed to the meeting and because the Special Representatives would have no more confidence in whomever replaced Andrew Lansley.

Whilst at the time I was disappointed the tone wasn't more strident from the BMA, I now see it has its benefits. The claim from David Cameron that the BMA is 'just another trade union' is frankly laughable in light of this meeting. The debates held were a million miles from the Punch and Judy politics of the House of Commons and despite being baited by politicians who insisted they would ignore the insights of doctors the BMA insisted on continuing to engage.

Frankly, Parliament could learn a lot from the democracy of the BMA. And they should certainly listen when the people who know the NHS the best say that this will destroy it.

P.s. I noticed that a favourite way to claim doctors were onside was to point to the number of GPs who were already involved in pathfinder schemes. I should make it clear to Lansley, these GPs didn't take part because they like the scheme (at least the majority didn't), most did so because PCT's are in meltdown because of these changes and someone needed to step in to fill the gap or patients would suffer. Unlike Lansley, GPs were simply putting patients before ideology.

Hello again!

People may have noticed that I took an impromptu break from blogging. call it burn-out or just plain boredom, but I didn't feel like writing for quite some time. Now however, I want to get back into it, so expect a flurry of posts coming up soon to make up for my absence.

Enjoy.