Home » Posts tagged 'Eastleigh'
Tag Archives: Eastleigh
Eastleigh reminds us all that all the Conservatives need to do is lose
Eastleigh was a remarkable by-election. It reminded us that, for Labour to win the General Election, all the Conservatives need to do is lose.
It cannot be considered fatal to ‘One Nation’ that Ed Miliband failed to win a seat which was 285th on his list of targets. What is remarkable is that the voters of Eastleigh did not give a “bloody nose” to the sitting incumbents, who include the Liberal Democrats. Despite a maelstrom of accusations and counter-accusations regarding Chris Huhne and Chris Rennard, local voters, albeit in fewer numbers, decided to give their vote to the Liberal Democrats. Even more strikingly, they did not “blame” the Liberal Democrats for policy failures for their senior partners. The Conservatives failed to win this seat, not simply because they failed to produce an ‘attractive offer’ to the British electorate, but also some voters are beginning to blame them for noteworthy policy mistakes. There is a huge repertoire of policy mistakes to choose from, but it is remarkable that former Conservatives who have voted for UKIP appear to have done so for two particular reasons. Firstly, they don’t give a damn about David Cameron’s “caste iron” guarantees about Europe. Secondly, they do BLAME George Osborne for snatching a triple-dip recession from the jaws of a fragile recovery bequeathed to them in May 2010.
“If at first you don’t succeed, blame Labour” has become an all-too familiar mantra, but people are increasingly unconvinced by the mouthpieces who have told them this. The BBC, plagued by an obsession over horsemeat and Jimmy Savile, have failed to report the massive outsourcing and privatisation implications of recent legislation over the NHS. Many in the public are sick-to-death of the tribal partisan line on the economy, which refuses to concede that there was an emergency bailout by the previous administration of the banking sector which led the deficit to explode. They are cognisant, through the social media, that the deficit has not gone down by a quarter, and, as anyone who has been lied to, they feel cheated.
Above all, it is tragic given that the Conservatives have many junior MPs within them that their party currently lacks direction and identity. The economy is a mess, many through Twitter knows the NHS is being auctioned-off to the highest corporate bidder, and disabled citizens are hopeful that they will see their benefits re-awarded on appeal. The fact that people would rather vote UKIP than Conservatives means that the Liberal Democrats votes could stay solid, particularly if Tory-LibDem marginal seat voters don’t blame them for having been forced into a corner on policy decisions. And yet, if the Liberal Democrats win similar seats in the 2015 general election, the Conservatives could be deprived of a working majority.
Contrary to what the BBC would have you believe, the Conservatives failed to win a majority last time. And support for LibDems in traditional LibDem areas is strong, because local activism of LibDem councillors and MPs is impressive. However, Labour find themselves in dangerous territory. They cannot afford to ‘take it easy’, thinking that their economic reputation will be restored if the economy screws up. There is a remote chance that, despite a prolonged experience of austerity-lite, the economy will slowly begin to recover. The truth, whether Labour likes it or not, is that the general public does not trust them with economic prowess; some people even still blame Ed Balls for making somewhat anti-immigration noises at the last election. So why doesn’t Labour campaign on a much stronger card of the NHS? There has become an increasing perception that Labour does not need to shore up their reputation in this regard, as they are ‘the party of the NHS’. This may be hard to sustain as their policy of NHS Foundation Trusts, and insidious marketisation of the NHS with a growing number of Trusts and departments going into an insolvency regime, is shredded to pieces. As a party supposedly representing social justice issues, Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, has all but resigned himself to the sweeping cuts in legal aid enshrined in the Legal Aid and Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act (2012), and parliament has generally been useless due to the arithmetic compared to moves afoot elsewhere, for example Lord Willy Bach’s “fatal motion”. The official Opposition part of HM Parliament seems powerless to stop unelected legislation at the moment, as another “fatal motion”, this time in the Lords from fellow Labour peer Lord Hunt, is one of the only mechanisms possible to stop the new statutory instrument on NHS procurement (SI 2012/057).
As outgoing Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, previously declared, this parliament was a ‘poisoned challice’. In a way, it is quite good for Labour that they have been given a few years to regroup their forces, and have had the Conservatives do some of their ‘dirty work’, in coping with a moribund economy, inflicting legal aid cuts, and accelerating the marketisation of the NHS. However, Labour has now a fighting chance of producing the arithmetic for a working majority in June 2015, but there is as yet no sense that Ed Miliband will be elected on a landslide. However, one very good thing to have emerged from Eastleigh is that the Conservatives seem to have retained their rather infamous ‘self-destruct’ characteristic, and all that needs to happen, for Labour to succeed in June 2015, is for the Conservatives to lose.
Eastleigh reminds us that all the Conservatives need to do is lose
Eastleigh was a remarkable by-election. It reminded us that, for Labour to win the General Election, all the Conservatives need to do is lose.
It cannot be considered fatal to ‘One Nation’ that Ed Miliband failed to win a seat which was 285th on his list of targets. What is remarkable is that the voters of Eastleigh did not give a “bloody nose” to the sitting incumbents, who include the Liberal Democrats. Despite a maelstrom of accusations and counter-accusations regarding Chris Huhne and Chris Rennard, local voters, albeit in fewer numbers, decided to give their vote to the Liberal Democrats. Even more strikingly, they did not “blame” the Liberal Democrats for policy failures for their senior partners. The Conservatives failed to win this seat, not simply because they failed to produce an ‘attractive offer’ to the British electorate, but also some voters are beginning to blame them for noteworthy policy mistakes. There is a huge repertoire of policy mistakes to choose from, but it is remarkable that former Conservatives who have voted for UKIP appear to have done so for two particular reasons. Firstly, they don’t give a damn about David Cameron’s “caste iron” guarantees about Europe. Secondly, they do BLAME George Osborne for snatching a triple-dip recession from the jaws of a fragile recovery bequeathed to them in May 2010.
“If at first you don’t succeed, blame Labour” has become an all-too familiar mantra, but people are increasingly unconvinced by the mouthpieces who have told them this. The BBC, plagued by an obsession over horsemeat and Jimmy Savile, have failed to report the massive outsourcing and privatisation implications of recent legislation over the NHS. Many in the public are sick-to-death of the tribal partisan line on the economy, which refuses to concede that there was an emergency bailout by the previous administration of the banking sector which led the deficit to explode. They are cognisant, through the social media, that the deficit has not gone down by a quarter, and, as anyone who has been lied to, they feel cheated.
Above all, it is tragic given that the Conservatives have many junior MPs within them that their party currently lacks direction and identity. The economy is a mess, many through Twitter knows the NHS is being auctioned-off to the highest corporate bidder, and disabled citizens are hopeful that they will see their benefits re-awarded on appeal. The fact that people would rather vote UKIP than Conservatives means that the Liberal Democrats votes could stay solid, particularly if Tory-LibDem marginal seat voters don’t blame them for having been forced into a corner on policy decisions. And yet, if the Liberal Democrats win similar seats in the 2015 general election, the Conservatives could be deprived of a working majority.
Contrary to what the BBC would have you believe, the Conservatives failed to win a majority last time. And support for LibDems in traditional LibDem areas is strong, because local activism of LibDem councillors and MPs is impressive. However, Labour find themselves in dangerous territory. They cannot afford to ‘take it easy’, thinking that their economic reputation will be restored if the economy screws up. There is a remote chance that, despite a prolonged experience of austerity-lite, the economy will slowly begin to recover. The truth, whether Labour likes it or not, is that the general public does not trust them with economic prowess; some people even still blame Ed Balls for making somewhat anti-immigration noises at the last election. So why doesn’t Labour campaign on a much stronger card of the NHS? There has become an increasing perception that Labour does not need to shore up their reputation in this regard, as they are ‘the party of the NHS’. This may be hard to sustain as their policy of NHS Foundation Trusts, and insidious marketisation of the NHS with a growing number of Trusts and departments going into an insolvency regime, is shredded to pieces. As a party supposedly representing social justice issues, Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, has all but resigned himself to the sweeping cuts in legal aid enshrined in the Legal Aid and Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act (2012), and parliament has generally been useless due to the arithmetic compared to moves afoot elsewhere, for example Lord Willy Bach’s “fatal motion”. The official Opposition part of HM Parliament seems powerless to stop unelected legislation at the moment, as another “fatal motion”, this time in the Lords from fellow Labour peer Lord Hunt, is one of the only mechanisms possible to stop the new statutory instrument on NHS procurement (SI 2012/057).
As outgoing Bank of England Governor, Sir Mervyn King, previously declared, this parliament was a ‘poisoned challice’. In a way, it is quite good for Labour that they have been given a few years to regroup their forces, and have had the Conservatives do some of their ‘dirty work’, in coping with a moribund economy, inflicting legal aid cuts, and accelerating the marketisation of the NHS. However, Labour has now a fighting chance of producing the arithmetic for a working majority in June 2015, but there is as yet no sense that Ed Miliband will be elected on a landslide. However, one very good thing to have emerged from Eastleigh is that the Conservatives seem to have retained their rather infamous ‘self-destruct’ characteristic, and all that needs to happen, for Labour to succeed in June 2015, is for the Conservatives to lose.
What exactly does Labour achieve by coming third in the Eastleigh by-election?
This is a totally independent post and does not represent the views of the Socialist Health Association.
If ‘expectation management’ were recognised in awards, the Liberal Democrats would get the Nobel Prize.
Martin Rathfelder, Director of the Socialist Health Association, said recently, “By-elections are funny things”. When Labour loses the Eastleigh by-election, the Labour line, as surely as night follows day, will be that nobody expected Labour to win this Hampshire seat which is safe territory for the Tories and Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives can never be underestimated for making a fight back, as anyone who remembers the 1992 general election will testify. And for whatever the faults of Chris Huhne and David Laws, many voters in that part of the country are very loyal to them and the Liberal Democrats. (more…)
Eastleigh: Collaboration, not competition, is what we need from Labour and the NHA Party
This is a totally independent post.
Clive Peedell doesn’t want the creeping marketisation of the NHS to go any further. Andy Burnham MP was the person who ventured out into ‘NHS global’, so that Foundation Trusts could sell their products abroad under the NHS logo, and who continued the march of the NHS Foundation Trust machine.
However, Andy feels now ‘enough-is-enough’. Despite being from the Labour (and some would say “New Labour”) stable, Andy has signalled that he wishes to repeal the Health and Social Care Act (2012). Of course, reversing the changes in it presents a more formidable challenge, but Andy says that he wishes to reverse Part 3 of the Act. This is code for getting rid of the fact that private companies, to which the NHS has been increasingly outsourced, will not be ‘competing’ to do what the NHS is supposed to do, using the NHS logo to maximise their own shareholder dividend. The unfortunate effect of engaging domestic and international competition law has become the ludicrous situation where the NHS cannot be given any preferential treatment for fear of offending European law, ‘distorting’ the market and so on.
There are strong economic arguments for not running the NHS in a fragmented piecemeal outsourced fashion; not least the NHS can benefit economically from ‘economies-of-scale’ and there is hope that with the proper leadership it can further national policy. Unfortunately, Sir David Nicholson and his army have stayed in situ when cultural change, when – in fact – a new charismatic change leader, is need to drive a move away from his failed ‘efficiency savings’. Efficiency was managerial speak for a Frederick Taylor-approach to management, looking at productivity and activity, meaning that one Foundation Doctor would be running around all the geriatric wards for the whole-of-the-night while his or her colleague was doing all the geriatric admissions in Casualty, to save money. The fact that you cannot have ‘something for nothing’, a popular philosophy of Thatcher, is borne out by the 400-1200 deaths in Stafford, where the inaction by the health regulatory bodies has been striking, and the political reaction somewhat confused.
In innovation, it’s possible for a new entrant to dislodge an incumbent by a slight subtlety. That is the basis of the splendid body of work by Prof Clay Christensen at Harvard Business School. However, nobody is expecting the NHA Party, co-founded by Dr Clive Peedell, a NHS oncologist, to dislodge Labour. However, Labour have openly admitted that Eastleigh is 285th on their “hit list”, so many question indeed Ed Miliband’s wisdom in spectacularly losing a safe Hampshire seat.
We have seen coalitions can work for one of the parties within it. We have also seen single-issue parties getting MPs somehow, such as Caroline Lucas in Brighton. If you park aside the perceived differences of NHA Party and Labour, given that Labour is “the party of the NHS” with its own brand loyalty, it might be conceded that Labour not winning does not further the NHS debate. It is possible that, as a protest vote against the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the NHA Party do indeed have a fighting chance of getting one MP.
And what is the point of one MP? Well what is the point of a handful of Liberal Democrats? In practice management techniques, such as PRINCE2, it is customary for there to be a ‘senior user’ as well as a ‘senior customer’ on your project board. While many will balk at the idea of ‘customers’ of NHS, unlike Prof Karol Sikora at the weekend on BBC’s “Sunday Politics”, there is a lot to be said, arguably, for input from frontline doctors and other healthcare staff in the NHS debate.
To delve into business management speak, which has possibly crippled the NHS thus far, the NHA Party and Labour have important synergies in values and competences in their outlook on the NHS. Ironically, there is an active debate about how collaboration, as well as (or rather than) competition, should be encouraged. It might be time to ‘think the unthinkable’, and consider the vague possibility that Labour, while desperately trying to fight for an electoral majority in 2015 despite the statistical odds, might benefit from a strategic alliance, or partnership, with the NHA Party. This does not need to be a formal joint venture, but, to expand the business analogy, could be a clever way for Labour to reaffirm its commitment to the NHS and for the NHA Party to gain ‘market entry’. Given that the traditional media appear not to allow the NHA Party to discuss the agenda fully, this may not be a bad thing, I feel.
Please feel free to contact me on @legalaware if you wish to have a constructive debate about any of the issues therein. Many thanks.
Chris Huhne, Lord Ashcroft, the Tories, the LibDems and the NHA Party: a perfect storm
The National Health Action Party (@NHAParty) have an excellent chance of winning Chris Huhne’s seat Eastleigh, and here’s the rub, the Conservatives’ very own Lord Ashcroft has provided an excellent explanation why.
Chris Huhne, Lord Ashcroft, the Tories, the LibDems and the NHA Party create a “perfect storm”:
This therefore shows the popularity of the Conservatives in decline, but not as massively in decline as the Liberal Democrats.
I certainly don’t think Eastleigh voters are unintelligent: I just think they’re incredibly badly informed.
According to Lord Ashcroft from recent polling evidence, “Conservatives lead on getting the economy growing and creating jobs, as well as dealing with the deficit. Moreover, voters tend to credit these policies to the Conservatives, not their junior partners. Overall, Cameron and Osborne are more trusted to run the economy than Miliband and Balls by a wide margin – but Lib Dem voters are no more likely to choose the government team when Nick Clegg is mentioned alongside his coalition colleagues. If voters see the campaign in terms of national issues, then, the Conservatives are in a very strong position.”
That Eastleigh voters care about national issues is of massive interest. The general election in 2015 is likely to turn the phrase ‘it’s the economy stupid’ on its head, as ordinary voters prioritise what is happening in the NHS as important. This is of no surprise with Labour and the Conservatives having rewarded failure in a management based culture, where people such as Sir David Nicholson and his ‘set’ have been winners, despite deaths estimated in the region of 400-1200 at Mid Staffs NHS Foundation Trust.
It is a barefaced lie that the “deficit has been cut by a quarter”, and this is borne out from many different sources which are dead easy to Google. The most recent figures show that current borrowing has fallen by just 6.4 per cent since 2010, while net borrowing has fallen by 18.3 per cent. The coalition reduced net borrowing by 24 per cent between 09/10 and 11/12 but only by slashing infrastructure spending by 42 per cent and tipping the UK into a double-dip recession and, perhaps, a triple-dip recession. The UK Statistics Authority have asked the Government not to repeat the fraudulent claim that NHS spending has gone up, but the Government has ignored their request.
So voting for the Conservatives on the strength of national issues such as the economy is total bunkum.
Even Lord Ashcroft provides himself an adequate explanation for why the NHA Party could in fact do extremely well:
“Despite their disdain for the established parties, voters are very reluctant to vote for independent candidates, however much they may like the idea in principle. Both the main parties could at least form a government, and will have policies in all areas that have some chance of being implemented. In practice, independent candidates largely serve as receptacles for protest votes.
Recent years offer two notable exceptions: in 2001, Dr Richard Taylor was elected in Wyre Forest on a platform of restoring the Accident & Emergency unit at Kidderminster Hospital, and in 1997 Martin Bell was elected in Tatton on a platform of not being Neil Hamilton. These examples show that for an independent candidate to win, they need an issue that is very local, very specific and very popular. They also need the connivance of at least one major party – Labour dropped out in Tatton, and the Liberal Democrats did not stand in either seat. None of these conditions are in place for Dr Peedell’s group.”
The NHS is continuously an important issue, and so is Chris Huhne.
Chris Huhne dramatically changed his plea this week by pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice over claims that his ex-wife Vicky Pryce took speeding points for him 10 years ago. The judiciary absolutely loathe the criminal offence of perverting the course of justice as it threatens the very foundations on which the English legal system is based.
In October 2012, it was reported that, through papers unearthed under the Freedom of Information Act showed, in June 2012 4.8 per cent of patients waited over six weeks for diagnostic tests, against a target of 1 per cent. “Capacity issues in endoscopy, ultrasound and cardiac tests have impacted performance significantly in June. This will incur some small contractual financial penalties for the foundation trust.”
A&E performance in 2011 was reported as extremely bad at Winchester and Eastleigh NHS Trust, where several target breaches around waiting times both for elective treatment and in its emergency department had been reported also. The acute trust was given a red rating for its time to initial assessment in accident and emergency, which was recorded at two hours and 19 minutes for the 95th percentile – against a target of 15 minutes. It was also over the target of a one-hour median wait to treatment, with an average of one hour and 21 minutes.
The NHA party candidacy at Eastleigh will also be a first electoral test for the government’s Health and Social Care Act, which was primarily drafted by the Conservatives on behalf of the corporate lobbyists, but driven through last April only with support from Liberal Democrats like Chris Huhne in the Commons and decisively in the Lords.
Party co-chair Clive Peedell (@cpeedell), a cancer specialist from Teesside, said:
“We believe the Eastleigh by-election offers a huge opportunity to radically alter the nature of our broken political system. For too long the three main political parties have betrayed the trust of the UK public in a tide of political sleaze and dishonesty.
The LibDems in particular have betrayed their grassroots supporters by supporting a Conservative-led coalition that is undermining and privatising our public services with no democratic mandate, and pushing forward an austerity package that will cause long-term damage to our country.”
