Judgement day for the NHS.

Today is the day that debate starts on Andrew Lansley's 'Privatise the NHS' Bill. It isn't actually called that, but let's call a spade a spade, that's what it is. If this goes through, private companies will not just gain a toe-hold, but a massive foothold. Even the Tory MP and GP Sarah Woolaston likened the bill to 'throwing a grenade into the middle of the NHS'.

David Cameron today tried to sell the reforms by insisting that the NHS isn't good enough as it is, and that it needs reforms to catch up to health care systems around the world. He of course ignores the fact that often the NHS comes out very highly indeed in comparisons of systems, but let's address what he says about us not performing well.

The King's fund, a non-political and highly respected health think tank, say that the case for reform have been 'over-sold'. The figures being used by Cameron and Lansley only go up to diagnoses in 2002, just a year after the Labour government started to really drive up spending on health.

The Conservative's need to play down the success of the NHS, it's the only way they can sell reform. But there facts just do not stack up.

I have written extensively on this, which you can find here. I will leave you with the remarks of the Lancet. Anyone in science will know the high standards of the editorials in the Lancet, and its esteemed reputation. Their blunt analysis is this:

"As it stands, the UK Governments new bill spells the end of the NHS."

Protest goes viral

Protesting against cuts isn't new, and even organising protests online is now fairly well established. But what is new is the use of new media to guide protests as they are happening. As a direct reaction to the draconian kettling of young and disabled protesters during the student protests a whole new world of protest organisation has sprung into existence, promising to allow protests to be more fluid, and as a result evade the police's attempts to stifle their right to protest.

I should make it clear at this point, I am no anarchist, I'm no enemy of the authorities (people who know me will find it strange that I even have to make this point) and so have no issue with policemen and women who perform a difficult job often admirably.

What I do however have an issue with, is the tactics being relayed and endorsed by the likes of Sir Hugh Orde which deny people not only their right to protest, but also their basic rights to freedom, to have access to food and water and sanitation. Keeping teenage protesters in an effective outdoor prison for upwards of 7 hours can never be acceptable in a democratic society.

And so it is that there is a demand by protesters for an effective way to keep one step of the powers at be. This requires them to keep the protest fast-flowing, to not allow them to be pushed into small an area, and to have eyes and ears warning them of developing police lines designed to contain them. A challenge that has bee admirably risen to, and new methods are still being developed, notably Sukey which promises to be the best yet.

Not only that, but the way protests are organised has shifted dramatically, from a system which required a large organisation (typically a trade union) to organise an event for its members to attend, to a system beautifully demonstrated by UKUncut where there is effectively no leadership and is open to all.

I took part in the latest UKUncut 'Twitter meeting' and it was quite amazing to see how quite an anarchic method to conduct a meeting could result in a well formed plan of action. If the police are genuine in wanting to allow peaceful protest whilst performing the necessary actions to keep the general public safe then they have to catch up, and fast.

They shouldn't, as Douglas Orde suggested, simply resort to ever more 'extreme' measures, as this will only further raise tensions and bring more confrontation. What they need to do is learn how to use this new media to engage with protesters and allow them to air their concerns rather than brutally squash them into a kettle. 

William Hague recently spoke out against the barbaric treatment of protesters in Egypt, let's hope the government heeds his words when it come to protests closer to home.

Edit: Since drafting this, news has reached that apparently the police have gone on rather a different tack, pepper spraying and dragging peaceful protesters who showed no signs of turning violent and even reports of using CS gas on some.

This is not the way to gain the respect, and as a result the compliance and peacefulness, of future protesters. It will only serve to alienate them, and that could be very dangerous indeed.

Freedom at last.

No, the title isn't a reference to the peoples of Tunisia or even in expectation of the rebellion in Egypt, but a freedom much closer to my heart. My own freedom from exams. 

Any excuse to include this answer on some Anonymous geniuses exam.

I had to take a couple weeks break from blogging to focus on revision, so can only hope it's paid off. The exams went fairly well overall, the semester test was incredibly hard, but everyone else found it equally hard so I can only hope that means I've done enough to pass.

In the brief time I have between my recovery from the excesses of last night and having to set off to Coventry for the excesses of tonight I thought I'd come back with a quick update of what's new.

As you may have seen in my previous post, I will now also be writing for All Bases Covered, a new blog where a few of us with different views can put forward our own opinions on what's important in the world right now, and hopefully stimulate some debate. This blog will still run as before, and many posts appearing here will be cross-posted to there.

Also new, I decided that I write so much about the idiocy of Andrew Lansley that I'd give him his own tab at the top of the page, named 'Save Our NHS', which will hopefully direct a lot of the traffic I get towards the petition to oppose the health reforms.

Stay tuned for posts to come back up to normal very soon.

A Brand New Blog For You.

This blog will still be running exactly as before, before I have a mass exodus of readers, but I'll also be posting on a new group blog which will have four regular writers as well as posts by others on a less frequent basis. Right now it's in its infancy, but expect posts on all manner of subjects, and from all manner of viewpoints.

You can find it here at: www.allbasescovered.blogspot.com

Instead of one viewpoint, you can see how the same events matter differently to people with other views and beliefs, something which is hard to achieve with one writer. Hence the name, we cover all bases.

You can find out more about who else will be writing and more about what the blog is about by visiting it now. Or alternatively, for those new media lovers, be one of the first to follow on Twitter to get updates on all new posts. Find us at @basescovered

EMA or Marriage Tax Break?

The clue's in the title, would you rather spend taxpayer money on Educational Maintenance Allowance, giving young adults the opportunity to stay in education, or give that same money to reward marriage, with no real proven benefits to family cohesion or other area of society?

I ask because the amount being 'saved' by scrapping EMA is £500m, whereas the Coalition's new tax break for marriage is costing £550m. They have decided the latter is more important.

We now know that the claim that these cuts are 'tough but necessary' is utter hogwash. It is a political choice by the Tory government, and allowed by the Lib Dems, between investing in the future skills of our nation and in giving a nice present to their voters.

The statistic that 90% would continue in education without EMA is from totally irrelevant research. It was published by a reputable source, but was not meant to be used in this context. They asked a sample of Year 11 pupils, who had no idea what hardships they may face when going to further education. The only applicable group to poll would be teenagers currently receiving EMA, not those who may (or rather may not after today's vote) receive it.

As the IFS have already reported, the amount spent on EMA is recovered handsomely as the recipient is kept off benefits and can actively contribute to the exchequer through taxation. Abolishing it is economic lunacy, and completely out of touch with the real life needs of young people. Though, I suppose we should have seen it coming after the madness of the trebling of tuition fees, locking thousands out of a better future and starving our economy of bright minds from poorer backgrounds.

First they scrapped the Future Jobs Fund for young people, then they trebled tuition fees, then they scrapped AimHigher. Now they've scrapped EMA, and today they also announced that they wish to privatise the NHS. Just how exactly do they expect us to believe we're 'all in this together'?