After the referendum?

This post is mainly addressed to elected MPs of the Conservative persuasion.

Whatever the outcome of the EU Referendum, I really think that David Cameron is peddling pure fantasy if he thinks that things can go back to 'normal'.

The party line is that after the vote, Conservatives will come together , sing a couple of verses of Kumbaya and return to governing the country.  That those people who have been peddling lies, half-truths and highly selective use of statistics will gather around the Cabinet room table, with their colleagues from the Brexit camp, and just 'get along'.

Further that the 150+ Conservative MPs, who support Brexit will become quiescent and follow the Tory party whip.  That these MPs will ignore the distrust that Cameron and Osborne have sewn with their attempts to fix the outcome of the EU referendum.

As said above, I think this is pure fantasy and I think that David Cameron and George Osborne know this.

I posit that Cameron and Osborne are actually planning an exit strategy that has them, and 'their' Remain MPs joining with those Labour Remainers, that are disaffected with the ineffectual and frankly disastrous  Jeremy Corbyn leadership, and forming a new political organisation.

Some will say it is unlikely that Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham would be prepared to break bread with Cameron and Osborne.  I am not one of them.  Consider, Labour has made lots of noise about 'austerity' and what they call swingeing cuts but they know the reality is that Osborne continues to spend and borrow like the 'reddest' of Labour Chancellors.  Austerity has been a stick to beat each other with but this has been a feebly deployed weapon by both sides.  Don't believe me?  Then explain how the Tories have been 'savagely cutting public expenditure' for the last 6 years and yet the National Debt has more than doubled to £1.6 Trillion.

This all may sound far-fetched but the Tories have a small majority, 12 , I believe and if Cameron cannot govern with an 'unruly' bunch of Brexiteers, then maybe he and Osborne would consider it best to break things up.  Of course it would be dressed-up as them 'not leaving the Conservative Party but the Conservative Party having left them' but the result would be a split.

And frankly,  I can see this happening, whatever the outcome of the vote.

That is, if (hopefully, when) a vote for Brexit is achieved, they and the Remainers would seek to frustrate the negotiations surrounding the Brexit so as to, in some perverted way, bring about the fulfillment of some of their wild referendum campaign claims and to seek a new referendum, where the environment/argument would then be 'we told you so'.

If, heaven forbid, there is a vote to 'remain' then Cameron can expect a leadership challenge and clearly Osborne's chance of succeeding him have evaporated so, why wouldn't they want to get ahead of the field and leave?  For the Labour 'deserters' they will point to the next-to-non-existent referendum campaigning  from Corbyn and his less than whole-hearted support for a clear Labour policy.  They might even call it a National Coalition Party and a coming together to 'heal the wounds and deep divisions that the referendum has created', etc..  With the huge amounts of money that the government spends on 'Special Advisers' (SPADs) you can expect these to come up with all sorts of rational-sounding reasons why it is the 'extremist right wing' of the Conservatives and other 'swivel-eyed loonies' that are at fault and so on.  These people will be called racists, 'little Englanders' etc..

So my advice to the Brexiteers is to get your retaliation in, first.  Disturb the 'peace' of the Conservative Party by initiating a vote of confidence  and a leadership challenge, now - don't wait for the outcome of the referendum.  Distract Cameron and Osborne from their lie-peddling and give them a new focus - their own survival.  Throw them off-balance and change the battleground.

In my view, the future of the Conservative Party, and indeed, Conservative policies, is at stake and the time for a pre-emptive challenge is now.

From Osborne, we have repeatedly seen how when someone pushes back, he folds - look at his tax credit policy, as a prime example.  Same really applies to Cameron - child refugees, anyone?.  Use these weaknesses and, in the process, save Britain.  Cameron and Osborne have adopted the bully boy tactics favoured by the Eurocrats and anti-democrats in Brussels but like all bullies they only attack those who do not defend themselves.  Like all liars and half-truth peddlers, they change the subject when faced with facts or the demand for evidence of their claims.

If Remain wins, it will only be because Cameron has repeatedly lied and stacked the deck against Brexit and has gotten into bed with Socialists and terrorist sympathisers and has called in favours from around the world from members of the 'Elite Club' who see democracy as something to be overcome and cheated against, rather than complied with

Business as usual , after June 23rd?  I don't think so.

Burnham's Challenge

Here is a challenge for Andy Burnham, the shadow minister for health.

Resign your current parliamentary seat and, at the next election, stand as the Labour party candidate in a constituency within the Mid Staffs Health Authority catchment area.

Don't bother with all the twaddle about representing 'your' people from Liverpool.  Have the courage to face the families of those 1,300 people that died, many in great and unnecessary distress, while you presided over the 'blessed' NHS.

You have prattled on about Hillsborough, where 97 Liverpool football fans died and yet are silent about Mid Staffs where so many more died.  Maybe if they had been your constituents you might have cared more.  You certainly emote about the 97, how about the 1,300?

Reader - please pass this on to Andy Burnham and your local MP and push this challenge forward.

If not Ed

Following their less than sparkling out-turn from the UK local elections, there are mumblings from the ever fraternal politicians, in the Labour Party, that maybe leader, Ed Miliband, should be replaced.

The thought never seems to cross their mind, that maybe the message is wrong.

Anyhow, that got me thinking about who could replace Ed.  The job spec. would include phrases like 'must have more personality than a finger puppet', 'must have coherent policies that address the needs of the people and can be easily articulated',  'must not talk about concepts like pre-distributive', 'must not talk in a whiny schoolkid 'miss they're being nasty to me' kind of voice'.

So the candidates.

Ed's brother, David Miliband?  The nearly candidate who was defeated by Ed?  Don't think so.  This is the same man that led everyone to believe he was about to take on the deranged Gordon Brown and then chickened out and instead of bringing along an ultimatum or resignation and challenge,  to the 'Kirkcaldy kook' brought a banana, instead!

Ed Balls?  Hardly!  He, like Ed M himself, is still tied to Gordon's failed economic policies.  Indeed, he still spouts them.  He predicted doom and gloom,  if the very modest cuts initiated by the Conservatives, were enacted.  By all measures, he was spectacularly wrong.  He's an attack dog politician, that tries to hide his innate thuggery behind a very thin smile and only use his bully boy tactics, when forced to but the real Balls is never far from the surface.

Yvette Cooper?  The wife of Ed Balls.  Just the fact that she is married to Ed Balls, should be sufficient reason to discount her.  How could the Labour Party have a leader that makes such a poor choice in spouses?  Okay, so I hear you say, what about Tony Blair?  Well, yes but would Labour repeat the mistake?  Anyway, she loses on the whiny voice front as well.  She is the plain and mousy person that always did her homework on time and only associated with other kindred spirits.  As said though, poor judgement on the spouse front must exclude her.

Chuka Umunna?  The Shadow Business Secretary has certainly done everything to push his credentials.  He always dresses in sharp suits and speaks so moderately but I think that he just isn't up to it and he certainly won't have a big constituency among the leader electors.  There is something about Chuka that always suggests to me that, he is looking to move on to something bigger but mainly something that means he doesn't need or want  to mix with the hoi polloi and, heaven for fend, workers.

Andy Burnham?  I only include him as a joke.  Far too toxic given his association with the Mid Staffs scandal.  In any leadership campaign, he would automatically start with 1,300 less votes as that is the number of NHS patients that died, at that hospital, on his watch.

Harriet Harman?  She is so ludicrously 'right on'  that she just might change her name to Harriet Harperson.  No, she and fellow MP and husband, Jack Dromey, are seen as fools and hypocrites - not unusual qualifications for a politician but Harriet is just too 'nanny state'.

Jim Murphy?  This might be a possibility except that he is so outwardly 'Scottish'  He is from the Glasgow side of Scotland and so doesn't have that Edinburgh condescending approach but I am not sure Labour can risk putting a Scot in charge as the association, by voters, with Brown, might be considered to be taking too much of a chance.  Seems like a decent and grounded person though, and not so metro-elitist as almost all of the others.

So, not really much choice for Labour.  The obvious solution would be to 'cut out the middle-man' and go for Len McCluskey, the leader of the public sector union, Unite.  McCluskey controls the purse strings anyway, so why not let him be the actual mouthpiece for the party he has bought?

Says a lot for the dearth of quality, that these are the only candidates that might replace Ed

What is integrity?

I think most people would say that integrity is about doing the right thing.  The best description I have heard is that 'integrity means doing the right thing, even when no one else is looking'.

Most people would, I suggest, also like to think that they and their fellow countrymen and most particularly their political leaders, act with integrity.  There is a sense that is common, on how we should behave.

However, and you knew there was one coming.  However, when people enter through the doors of the  political world, integrity leaves through the windows.

In short, why do politicians act as poorly as they do?  And, to be clear, when I say politicians I include all the government service bureaucrats and all of those that swim in the public-funded pool - be they directly funded organizations, NGOs or 'funded' scientists, etc..

Take Lois Lerner, as an example.  This is the woman that was, until recently, the head of America's Internal Revenue Service.  During her tenure, the IRS targeted right of centre groups.  These groups were entitled to certain tax-privileged status under the US Tax Code, so long as they met certain conditions.  Lerner's IRS repeatedly challenged and delayed the special tax status for these right of centre groups - such as various Tea Party organizations.  The purpose seems clear.  Use unelected government employees to frustrate, using illegal means, the rights of American citizens to exercise democratically passed tax laws, in the furtherance of opposing political aims.  One defence put forward by Lerner and her allies, is that they applied the rules 'even-handedly'.  They did the same due diligence on tax exempt status for left of centre groups.  As evidence they talk of 5 or 6 such groups being impeded in gaining their special status.  When you contrast that with the hundreds of 'right' groups that suffered delays and bully-boy tactics, you can see a very clear political agenda being followed.

Lois Lerner, an employee of the IRS - or, put another way, a (well) paid servant of the American people, was called before Congress.  Now, excuse me while I get a little 'utopian' on you but Congress, or in the UK, parliament, is where the representatives of the people go to transact business on behalf of their electorate.  Where we expect them to do things and hold people to account for things, that we, as individuals cannot.

Ms Lerner, then preceded to plead the 5th Amendment in front of Congress.  She refused to answer questions put to her, on the grounds that to do so honestly, might incriminate herself.   So, when asked, by representatives of the American people,  about how she did the job for which the American people lavishly compensate her, she refused to answer.  I guess I wouldn't make a good juror if Lois ever came to trial before me.  I figure that asking her how she carried out her job is an entirely legitimate question and, when she pleaded the 5th, I would draw the reasonable conclusion that she was  not carrying out those duties in a legal manner otherwise she wouldn't be worried about self-incrimination.

Anyway, it seems that Lerner will now face sanctions of some kind as the House of Representatives found her to be in contempt of Congress.  The vote was 231 in favour and 187 against.  Those in favour included 6 Democrat party representatives.  In terms of integrity though, I find it both appalling and and at the same time interesting/instructive that 187 politicians - all Democrat Party members - didn't see that Lerner's actions were, in fact, a contempt of Congress and, by extension, contempt for the American people.

To take it a bit further, acting with integrity, screams that Lerner is in contempt.  Abandoning integrity and toeing the party line, says that while she may be in contempt, we Democrats won't throw her to the Republican wolves nor will we do anything that aids the opposition.  (Or, for that matter, we Democrats will do nothing to restore the faith of the people in politicians either knowing or doing the 'right thing'!)

Some of those 187 will be out of a job, come November and will have more time to ponder their character deficiencies.  But think about it.  What causes such people to abandon morality on political grounds?

In case you think I am Lerner obsessed, I am not.  I am just using that to illustrate the point about the decline or lack of morality that is seen in modern day politics.  My focus is on the UK and US.  These are 'mature' democracies and as such, one would expect the basic values to be more ingrained.   There are numbers of European countries, for example, where democracy and the rule 'of the people, by the people' are new concepts - some being in place for less than 40 years.  In those countries, one might expect the flower of integrity to be fragile and initially feeble as the plant comes up against modern day real-politiks but in the established UK and US democracies - countries founded on documents like Magna Carta and the US Constitution and indeed, a Judeo-Christian religious ethic - one would really expect that the roots of integrity and basic honesty, would be deeper and stronger.

What makes Jay Carney, the White House Press spokesman, stand up in front of a largely compliant media, and day after day, dodge and prevaricate, when answering the few questions that he gets asked, about Benghazi?  It surely isn't to protect the national security interests of the USA - that might make it slightly more legitimate - but no, it is solely to protect the Obama administration (the one that was elected by we the people, I do hope you are keeping up! ) from questions to which the people, want answers.

I do hope my American readers don't think I am targeting them and suggesting that my home country is any better.

In the UK, we have seen and heard, over the years countless examples of politicians and public servants acting without integrity.  From accepting money to ask questions in parliament to other far more serious issues. 

To illustrate the latter.  Under the (envy of the world, so British leftists claim) National Health System
more than 1,300 patients died at a hospital group called Mid Staffs.  These hospital patients were found to have received very poor and in some cases downright inhumane treatment from the staff into whose care they had been placed.  An eventual Public Inquiry found significant numbers of short comings and examples of abuse.

And yet.  Sir David Nicholson, then head of the NHS area that included Mid Staffs, who later went on to become overall head of the NHS received no punishment.  Indeed he was able to retire, just this year on a full, highly remunerative, pension.  Andy Burnham, who was the Labour Party minister responsible for the NHS, has received no sanction.  Indeed he continues to represent that portfolio for the Labour Party.  

Okay neither received punishment.  I think that many, if not most, people would say that they should have experienced some small percentage of the suffering that  was inflicted on those 1,300 victims but, that aside, what kind of people are they, that they have no integrity or moral compass that screams at them saying 'this was wrong and even while I didn't personally commit any injury to people, this happened on my watch and I must set an example and do the decent thing' ?

Why is it that so many people, on entering politics or public service, abandon basic morality and act with little or no integrity?  We have scientists for heaven's sake, scientists who purposefully distort data and suppress information and then seek to silence and punish any critics, all in the furtherance of  an unproven theory.  (In fact a theory that is not just unproven but for which the contrary position is becoming ever more apparent, based on facts and evidence!)

We have American military people who are given orders to not go to the aid of  Americans that are being attacked (and ended-up being brutally tortured, raped and murdered) and these people do not have the integrity to do the right thing.  Incidentally, the current stories suggest that President Obama wasn't even in the White House Situation Room while events in Benghazi unfolded.  The word is that the President's special adviser, his fellow-traveler from Chicago, the unelected Valerie Jarrett, was calling the shots.  Maybe that's what Jay is covering-up?

I am not seeking to set off some kind of moral crusade here but is it so crazy to expect higher standards from our elected officials?  Suppose it is.  Is it crazy to expect that those that are paid by 'the people' are at least answerable to those self same 'people' and this is especially important when those 'sucking on the public teet' are unelected.

Please feel free to pass this on and particularly to your elected representatives - we really do need to bring about change and restore the notion that acting with integrity is the right thing to do.

 

Labour's bonking mad!

No this isn't a story about over-sexed socialists (unless you maybe include Rev. Paul Flowers) but please do read on.

Ed Miliband, the figure-head leader of the socialists in the UK, the real leader is union boss, Len McCluskey, has indicated that Labour would try to create two new large banks in the UK, so as to promote 'competition.

Now think about that.  We already have 5 big banks in the UK.  We also have building societies (akin to US savings and loans/credit unions).  Indeed, two of these banks are largely owned by the UK people.  The 'people' own more than 80% of Royal Bank of Scotland.

It is entirely unclear what benefits this extra competition will bring.  We now know that Miliband's words have cost the UK taxpayers more than £ billion from the reduction in share prices seen for RBS and LloydsTSB.

Consider also, what happened last time Labour were in power.  This champion of greater competition, then forced through the takeover of the HBOS banking group by LloydsTSB, thereby reducing the number of banking chains!

Consider also, the Labour party's closest banking ally - the Cooperative Bank.  This bank had Rev. Paul Flowers appointed as its chairman, under Labour's 'light touch' regulatory regime.  This is the same Rev. Paul Flowers that is accused of hiring rent boys and using illegal drugs, including Ketamine.  The same Rev. Paul Flowers who is accused of abusing his position as a church  minister to allegedly defraud a charity.  Oh yes, and the same Rev. Paul Flowers who took the Co-Op bank to the brink of bankruptcy!  In the last action, he perhaps proved that he was as qualified as other leading bankers, at least!

So Labour, whose record with banks is, shall we say, patchy, wants to interfere and create competition?

Since when has Labour been so keen on competition?  When did they become the champions of consumer choice?  I ask because there seem to be some areas for which Labour is absolutely opposed to promoting competition.  These are not areas where the incumbents are actually performing well.  Indeed, quite the opposite.

These areas?  Well, the NHS and Education, to name just two.

With the NHS, the UK effectively has a monopoly supplier of health care that is controlled by its provider union personnel.  Can you imagine the uproar that would have followed, if a private health supplier had treated patients the way that the 'envy of the world' NHS treated people at Mid Staffs and other scandal-riddled hospitals?  Does anyone think that Andy Burnham, the Labour minister in charge at the time of these scandals, who tried to hide the truth, would remain in the role, if he were in a private company?  Hundreds of people died unnecessarily and in appalling conditions when their very lives were entrusted to this monopoly provider but, according to Labour, that's okay.

Look also at education, where Labour, again repaying the debts to its union paymasters, consistently opposes any and all reform.  Here the Conservatives have pushed ahead with supporting the establishment of independent schools but much still needs to be done and Labour, and its local authority allies and other members of the payroll electorate, will continue to oppose much needed reform.  As with health, Britain's education system is failing as successive governments have failed to address the core issues because they have focused on 'politically correct' solutions and ignored real world problems.

Apparently, Labour want to see more choice on the high street but I seriously wonder how many people still rely on physical branches and how many use online banking?  When was the last time you went into a bank?

Anyway, usual stuff from Miliband and his socialists.  The 'cost of living crisis' is seen to be being solved, as real wages start to exceed prices and so it is time for another soundbite!  Worryingly, Labour still have a chance that they might be in charge of the UK economy, after the next election.  Miliband the banker - be afraid, very afraid.  Remember who ran the economy alongside the disappeared Gordon Brown?


   

Keogh's NHS

Sir Bruce Keogh published a report, this week, into hospital deaths within the 'envy of the world' - the NHS.

The report was commissioned by the UK Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, following the publication of the Mid Staffordshire Public enquiry (see here.  http://bit.ly/1222EJK).  This earlier report followed what can only be described as inhuman treatment of patients at Mid-Staffordshire Hospitals.  At the time, the Strategic Health Authority was led by Sir David Nicholson - now head of NHS England and the minister in charge was Andy Burnham, the emoting Merseyside MP who is currently Ed Miliband's shadow Health secretary.

So what did this report find? 

Well, it looked at the 14 hospital trusts that had abnormally high mortality rates and its findings speak to a common problem across the NHS - that is, a provider-led service which is more concerned with it's own preservation and conditions than those of patients.    The report found 'trust boards and management teams struggling to understand and deal with the complex issues of high mortality, particularly relating to urgent and emergency care'.  Read that again!  These 'leaders' were 'struggling' to handle the very things that they were put in place to deal with.  These are senior medical 'professionals' not street sweepers or pint-pulling barmen.  And yes, it is 'brain surgery' in some cases but they are supposed to know how to deal with this!

All but two of the trusts had what are called 'never events'.  'Never events' are 'serious, largely preventable patient safety incidents that should not occur if the available preventative measures have been implemented'.   Especially concerning was that many of the trusts had multiple 'never events'.  I read this to mean that the subsequent deaths were largely avoidable, or to put it another way, these people died because of the NHS

The report is, generally speaking, kind to the medical staff but hidden within are comments about junior doctors and nurses access to senior clinical staff being less than optimal.  Also about poor coverage at weekends.  To me this is code for 'those highly compensated consultants choose when they work, it is 9-5 and they only do Monday through Friday'.   

There is talk of high rates of sickness absence and this having to be overcome by the use of agency nurses and locum doctors.  Absence from work in the whole public sector is high and seems to be considered as yet another 'perk of the job'!  So no real surprise there!

And what of the 'left' and it's Guardian and biased-BBC allies?  Well, they have been somewhat quiet about this.  They haven't called for any heads to roll - methinks that this because the only heads that should 'roll' are those of Burnham and Nicholson - and the greatest stick that the left-wing media  commonly use to beat the Tories with,- lack of funding and local issues (as in underfunded local communities or 'send more taxpayer money') is completely discredited. 

The report states:  Factors that might have been expected - and are frequently claimed - to impact on high mortality rates, such as access to funding and the poor health of the local population, were found not to be statistically-correlated with the poor results of these trusts.  The average for the 14 trusts is broadly the same as the England average in terms of funding and the socio-economic make-up of the populations they serve.

As you would expect, the Labour Party response is to accuse anyone that points out that this report is yet another damning indictment of their mis-handling of the NHS, of 'playing politics'.  This is the same Labour Party that previously 'played politics' by saying that the NHS was safe in their hands and that the Tories would privatize the NHS.  Readers of this blog will know of the many previous examples of hypocrisy of which Labour can be accused but this must rank among the highest ones.  Labour's boast, through 13 years of mis-government was that only they could ensure that the NHS was adequately funded.  They did this as, having found that a shovel wasn't big enough, they decided to employ a bull-dozer to push cash in the way of the NHS.  And to what end result?  People dying unnecessarily and in great pain and without  a shred of dignity by the caring, sharing NHS!

At the root of it, that's the problem with Labour.  Their solution to anything is to throw tax-payer money at it.  Whatever the problem - more spending.  Nothing cannot be cured with more government (as in tax-payer) money.  The Labour Party hold-up the NHS as their greatest achievement - people dying unnecessarily - some achievement!!

Here are some snippets arising from the report.

Terry Day, a 35 year-old had been diagnosed with a low grade brain tumour.  When he was admitted to Basildon and Thurrock Trust A&E 13 months later, staff failed to take the condition into account.  No neurological assessments were carried out and his airways were not checked.     When his tumour haemorrhaged, he went into cardiac and suffered brain damage.  He died 20 days before his planned wedding.

The CEO of Basildon hospital received a £72,000 pay-off as compensation for loss of office.  This came on top of the salary he received, of £150,000 in the period April to September 2012 and an additional, tax-free payment of £30,000.  Oh and he had a pension pot of $1.7Million - that should give an annual pension of more than £85,000 a year, for the rest of his life.   

Two operating theatres immediately shut down at North Cumbria University Hospital Trusts over hygiene concerns.

Trust                                                Number of Excess deaths                   CEO Pay
                                                        2005 to 2012

Basildon and Thurrock                    1,607                                                £150,000
Buckinghamshire                             538                                                   £155,000
Burton                                              700                                                   £135,000
East Lancashire                                655                                                   £150,000
George Eliot                                     986                                                   £140,000
Medway                                           711                                                    £150,000
North Lincolnshire                          954                                                    £140,000
North Cumbria                                672                                                    £185,000
Sherwood Forest                             819                                                    £155,000
Tameside                                         833                                                    £145,000
United Lincolnshire                      1,531                                                   £180,000
Colchester                                        724                                                   £??
Dudley Group                               1,235                                                   £175,000
Blackpool                                     1,368                                                   £170,000


Two figures missing from the above?  Those of Andy Burnham and David Nicholson (sans knighthood) doing the decent thing and departing the scene.

Something else missing?  The removal of the spending ring-fence for the NHS - Cameron and Osbourne take note - the NHS has to be about care not about how much is spent!

NHS and death

Another day, another NHS cover-up story!

What shocks me about the latest news of a cover-up, is the way that politicians and the media express faux-surprise that these events (the failures surrounding baby deaths at Cumbria hospital) occur.

What do we expect? 

We have an organization that has gorged on ever-increasing sums of tax-payer money and whose now almost sole purpose is to ensure that it can extract ever more funding.  Patient care or more properly patient-centred care is not even on the agenda. 

The NHS has been broken for years.  The Labour party, mindful of the strong union presence within the organization, has thrown money at the NHS and have very skillfully brought the debate (or actually the lack of debate) to such a state that funding for the NHS is almost considered sacrosanct.  Even the Tories and the 'tail wagging the dog' Lib Dems took office promising to ring fence NHS spending plans and funding.

So while the army gets sent to fight wars, poorly or ill-equipped and for their troubles then face redundancies, doctors, nurses and the whole plethora of middle managers get to enjoy job protections and perks that the rest of the world can only dream of.

The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA)  recently produced a report which showed the staggeringly large amounts of money that is wasted by UK government in its various guises.  For anybody that pays taxes this is truly a frightening read.  The low-side estimated total is £120 Billion.  And that likely excludes a whole lot of other waste that the TPA highlight but don't add to the total on the grounds that they might then be double counting.  If only the government spenders were so careful and acted with such probity!

Here are just a few examples of the waste that is found just in the NHS:

• £13 Million by London NHS Trusts on Public Relations (Source TPA and BBC)
• £6 Million paid by a single NHS Trust to five doctors to provide 'top-up' services in the period 2007 to 2010 (Source TPA and Daily Mail)
• £18 Million paid in gagging orders to 600 NHS officials (Source TPA and Daily Telegraph)
• £80 Million spent on prescribing Vitamin D, much of which is overpriced - for example, £2,400 was spent on a £16 Vitamin D treatment.  (Source TPA and Daily Mail)
• £128,383 paid to a healthcare assistant who falsely claimed the right to work.  (Source TPA and NHS Business Services Authority)
• £1 Million - spent on luxury vehicles for Strategic health Authority employees, including Porsche Boxters (Source TPA and Daily Mail)
• £1 Million paid as a golden goodbye to a former chief executive of the NHS Midlands and East.

Sadly, the list goes on and on.  Remember also, that these are just some of the examples that the gallant TPA (not government funded) manage to uncover through Freedom of Information requests. 

Also these include examples uncovered by the press.  The same press that Leveson and all of the political parties want to muzzle!  Draw you own conclusions as to motive.  My view is that the freedom of the press to uncover such waste, is much more important than a celebrity's right to have a blow job in public and not have the police case exposed!  I suppose it comes down to values, in the end.

Talking of values, search your news outlets and media organizations.  See if you can find any calls for the resignation of Andy Burnham (or just see if you can find Andy Burnham).  He was the minister in charge of the NHS in the last Labour government - remember?  he was the one in charge when 1,200 people died at Mid Staffs Hospital as a result of appalling levels of care being administered in 'our wonderful NHS'.   See also if you can find anything of Sir David Nicholson.  He is the head of the NHS.  He received a knighthood, presumably for his services to the Health Service (you couldn't make it up).  He was the head of the relevant Strategic Health Authority, at the time of the Mid Staff deaths.  he retains his knighthood and will leave the NHS, next year, with a rumoured £4 million pension pot.  That should give him something like £200,000 a year pension, for life!  Oh, and he will get that, even if he then, after a short break, goes and joins a health consultancy  or medical equipment provider, pharmaceutical company, etc.!

Surely the scales must be starting to drop from the eyes of the people?  Mid Staffs and Cumbria are just the tips of a very murky iceberg, I fear.   We likely won't ever know the full extent of the negligence and poor care that people receive at the hands of 'our wonderful NHS' because this 'national treasure' uses tax-payer money to buy-off potential whistle-blowers and usually settles cases of alleged mal-practise out of court and with confidentiality clauses attached.

It is surely time that the ring-fence was removed from the 'envy of the world' - which strangely no other country copies - and the  excessive fat removed.  Radical reform is required but in reality I hold out little hope of change.  It doesn't seem to matter whether it is old people in Mid Staffs or babies in Cumbria that are dying - no one in government cares enough about them to do anything.  I guess, what it comes down to is that the dead don't have a vote! 
  

A curse on both their houses

So finally, we have managed to find a jury that understands some of the basic concepts of law - such as only convicting on the basis of evidence presented!

The re-trial of Vicky Pryce has ended in her conviction and, like her former husband, she will be sentenced in due course.

Here are my thoughts.

Based on all of the information available, they both deserve the guilty verdicts. 

Vicky Pryce's defence of marital coercion could never really hold water when one considers her somewhat glittering career.  She was hardly some timid mouse who was going to be cowed by her husband, into committing an illegal act.  

Chris Huhne plead guilty and so we were spared the expense of a trial (and he, further embarrassment).

While I can understand the judge not wanting to pass sentence on Huhne, while Pryce's trial was underway, I have to question why Huhne wasn't recalled to court yesterday and both given their sentences, there and then.  The judge seems to have clearly (and rightly, in my view)  indicated that they will be sent to jail, so why not get on with it?  They have enjoyed extended periods of bail and have had ample time to prepare for this.  I suppose that some of those rioters that were (again rightly) sentenced to prison following the August 2011 riots would have liked more time to 'arrange their affairs' but instead they got swift justice and straight to jail.  Unlike Huhne they didn't get the chance to pass Go and collect £200 or in his case many £££s as redundancy payment from Parliament!

Some will say, this was only about who took speeding points.  I disagree.  This is about people conspiring to pervert the course of justice.  And not just any 'people'.  These are people who see themselves as being 'above' us.  People who would rule over us.  We are right to expect the highest standards from them.  We shouldn't though be too surprised!  Remember the anger and disgust we all felt as the Daily Telegraph published detailed accounts of excess and often downright theft committed by MPs?  I would say that many MPs are now viewed as self-serving, low-lifes not even fit enough to be in the same category as Estate Agents and second-hand car salesmen!   It isn't just the stealing, the lying and the greed, it is the two-facedness of it all.  Do as I say, not as I do.  

And never expect me to apologise!  I am a politician - the new master race.  We can do no wrong.  When you, the public, bring up inconvenient truths like the Mid Staffordshire Hospitals scandal, we will divert you with a scam story about horsey beef-burgers.  And yes, in case you haven't heard, Andy Burnham is still a member of parliament and a Shadow Cabinet minister and Sir David Nicholson is still a knight!!

Oh, and never forget, when you hear of some old person dying of hypothermia, because they couldn't afford to heat their house, that the male prisoner, serving a sentence for perverting the course of justice, was a big proponent of the green taxes that so unnecessarily burden people and which have created a whole new class of poverty - fuel poverty!

 Their is, rightly, sympathy for the children of the Huhne's.  Having the whole world know that your father wanted you aborted can't be a pleasant thing.  That he was a liar and a cheat as well, kind of pales into insignificance.  Having a mother who then wants to wash all of this very personal laundry in the most public of arenas? 

I applaud Vicky Price for seeking vengeance on Chris Huhne and for bringing him down.  She would have done a whole lot of good and saved herself and particularly her family, a whole lot of pain, if she had plead guilty, just after Huhne did.  That she didn't, speaks volumes for her sense of proportion.

Here is a test for you - try to name thirty (out of 635) MPs that you would consider as decent and principled.   Surely you can come up with 5%?  I think you will have difficulty but would welcome your suggestions.  Please though, don't bother suggesting Galloway!  He is beyond any pale!