According to the NWN Richard Benyon has refused a debate over the NHS Health Bill with Newbry Labour party spokesperson Richard Garvie. David Rendell has offered to take part but it would appear that the local MP is not prepared to debate this very important issue. He has stated he will talk with any constituents who may have concerns at his office.

Thoughts?

Surprised there has been not debate on the forum over such a very important topic.

I doubt anyone could explain the issues.

Such an event would merely regress into a quagmire of politicking, with no decent information. Better to go to the MP Surgery and ask him direct - always assuming the interested person knows what the Bill says......

I wouldn't expect him to take part in a debate with a "Labour Party Spokesman". I'm not having a pop at Richard Garvie, if there was an election due or if he was a parliamentary candidate it might be different. I like that Rendel has "offered" to take part, what a desperate and sad old loser he has become!

Rendel is so desperate for visibility he would turn up for the opening of an envelope.

As opposed to Benyon who is not prepared to either debate it in public or explain it outside the confines of his office? I wonder why that would be?


The 'envelope' line was first used by Private Eye about Princess Michael of Kent ( a.k.a.Princess Pushy) over 30 years ago. Got any newer material?

I've never heard it before, it was funny, and more to the point, accurately sums up Rendell.

Good for you. But that's the problem with being out-of-touch and not quite up to date. Almost as bad as someone mis-spelling Rendel.

I think we all know why that would be.

The bravery of being out of range.

You're a bit touchy today Squelchy. you need to relax a bit. Do you good.

Where did you see/hear he has said that?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/health-...save-nhs-benyon

Are you implying that it is too difficult for the average person to understand the bill therefore not worth debating to help elucidate the issues involved and what it may mean to the future of the NHS?

That doesn't say he is unwilling to debate it in public, it says that he has declined an invitation from a member of the public to debate it in an arena that is not appropriate.

"he would speak to any unhappy constituents at his office"

When questioned on why the NHS was undergoing a top down reorganisation when the party manifesto stated there would not be before the election Richard Benyon would only quote the Tory party inane response.

"It is a bottom up reorganisation"

Like others I must admit to not understanding most of the Bill but I do think it is a dangerous precedence just to keep quiet and not try to understand just what is trying to be achieved, instead of trying to understand just how it will affect the NHS.
It would appear that most health proffesionals are against the Bill so I really do have concerns especially when seeing how the free markets and privatisation has affected other organisations such as the railways, utilities etc.

Can I just say..........How refreshing...........a thread without xjay in it!!

Yes and very dull it is too.

Refreshing but dull?

Hang on........he's reading this...............here he comes.....................!!!

Ohhh ****, you've gone and said it now. Andy and his crew of merry men will be saying I am posting for attention..
You see, a thread without me is like 7UP Zero. It's refreshing, but somehow lacks the zest of the full fat 7UP.



Yeah, because this is not a topic that interests me or one that I even understand to be honest. Because firstly no-one has really given any information about the subject, so someone who has a life outside of the news and goings on of "Cllr blah blah" would be able to read what's actually going on, and understand the topic.
From what I understand, Richard Benyon wants to promote a restructuring of the NHS and people are having a hissy fit because he won't enter into a debate with your average joe in the middle of Victoria Park with a moments notice... ? (and if I'm wrong then so what)
See, even I can't make that sound exciting.

Although this actually is a genuine story, I went for a plum-exam last year.. So the doctor (not my usual one, he was off sick, the irony...this was a doctor I've never seen before) said "right then Jamie if you could just please take your clothes off.."
-what...uhm, everything? *circling the general area of my crotch with my hand* (i'm unsure at the best of times but with a random man...?)
"that's the idea" said the doctor, coldly. It's not a stereotype, most doctors are not very "peopley" people..

Normally I at least get some cuddles or a kiss before being asked to strip...I've never been with a male dominatrix or infact any male whatsoever so this was a new experience for me.

-well I wouldn't do this on a first date...but you have a trusting face and.. I don't know, you just make me feel safe *starts to undress*

"*blank stare back from doctor*"

THAT GOT ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE NOT EVEN A SMIRK.... I mean come on... Must be a hoot at parties.

Doesn't say he has refused to debate in public or explain outside the confines of his office.... All it says is he has declined a debate with a local Labour Party member and a local Lib Dem Councillor.

(Edit to reflect someone else has said the same already!!!)

No. Please don't start a fight in an empty room....
I suspect Mr B will have had a full brief on the Bill whereas many will have only seen the media interpretations. Anyone seeking to question the MP would be advised to have a decent understanding of the whole Bill otherwise he will not be troubled. That has nothing to do with ability, only preparation.

'Only' in his office?

I guess the interpretation of not being top down is the Ministry is not involved, only the patient-facing structure and the immediate management level above that......

I do not propose just keeping quiet, but I do caution against relying on the media for quality explanations........ including the weight of opposition and the quality of their case. That is a difficulty us mere citizens have with all too many Government activities - we are conditioned by the media and politicians, not informed.

Oh sorry, didn't know it was a requirement to be fully briefed on PI for the last 30+ years before coming on here making a comment. I haven't the time to check, but I do hope there isn't a typo in any of your previous posts because if there a single mistake was it would of course label you a massive hypocrite.

Best not delay too long it may be too late - by the time the we have obtained the relevant information we may have lost our NHS as we know it! How do you suggest a layman gets an interpretation of the Bill to be able to understand it? Or is not explained clearly on purpose - what the normal average person doesn't know will not hurt them attitude?

As there has been no discussion of the bill locally are we to assume there is no opposition then?

Could be.......


'Lost the NHS as we know it'?

The NHS I know gives me a Dr almost whenever I want to see him, a Dentist likewise (although I do have to contribute) and access to specialist services. Which of those is being cancelled?
At the moment my GP has to have referrals approved through a management budget control system; in the future he will not need to do that as he will have control.

Which will amount to the GP telling you you can't be referred to a chiropractor, rather than a management committee telling you so.

I must be very lucky with my GPs over the years, as I have never had such an experience.....

What I meant was, it will be a GP telling you what you can and can't have, as opposed to a 'management committee'.

Does the new deal mean more £s per patient, or same £s but more patients treated?

Do GPs actually refer patients to chiropractors? I've always thought of that as somewhat witch-doctory, like homeopathy, hot pebbles and crystals.

Who knows. I do know GPs love to dish out prozac and pain killers as if confetti.

I suspect somewhere between the two, as the reduced management structure can hopefully free up money for patient care while also allowing a saving.

I'd much rather my GP decided my treatment and priority than a faceless one.....


As for 'alternative' treatment, GPs are more open minded than of old, and I guess the new regime could make it easier for them to make such a referral if they believed it appropriate for the patient.
Or maybe I'm just too trusting.....

As I understand it the new system will give the Gp's a budget. With the present sytem your GP does not have to worry about the cost of your treatment. If he thinks you need treatment in hospital or outpatients etc this cost is the responsibility of the PCC who have to find the money or explain to an SHA why they will not provide treatment.
The new system could create a conflict of interest for the GP as it may be possible that the treatment you require could consderably eat into his alloted funds. So even if he thinks you should have the treatment he may be reluctant to refer you becuase it will reduce his funding too much. So how are we to be sure the GP is actually acting in our best interest.
You should always have checks and balances but with this system there appears to be none. At present you can appeal to an SHA for a final decision if you are not satisfied with your treatment. As I understand it there will be no such sytem in place with the new system. GP's will be responsible for the entire approx 8 billion pounds of Health Service budget. They have no experience of this sort of managment so it is invevitable that they will require the assitance of the usual paid Consultants to assist them and it is mainly American companies that are in line for this it would seem. So even if as you say a certain amount of management will be reduced, even though according to a lot of reports NHS management are some of the most effecient in the world, this will result in a lot of money being drained from the NHS and going overseas.

Just surprised that there has not been more clamour from the general public for information so that they may be able to understand just what the bill is all about and just what it will really mean for our NHS. I have a friend who lived for years in America and he states our Health Service is the envy of world. And we spend less on our Health Service than the majority of other countries.

What I have not seen are figures. I'd like to know how many patients we currently have, and how much we spend per patient. I would then like to know what it will be after the changes.

Quite frankly, I do not trust GP's ability to do their job sometimes, let alone be responsible for a budget. They will have to employ staff that I presume will be former PCT/SHA employees.

All these changes appear to be is a divide a rule strategy.

Or as quite a few in the Health profession are implying - Divide rule and big business share in the profits - equates to less actually being spent on the NHS and more money going to big business.

Is the Health service that bad that we need all these changes?

http://opmblog.co.uk/2011/11/16/new-resear...nal-comparison/

And how do the lying Tories explain it away? It is not a top down re-organisation; it is a top up re-org! It is incredible the rubbish us electorate believe!

How do our local Lib Liars feel now that the conference has voted not to support the Health & Social Care Bill?
What will their leader do now do you think? Go against the party that he leads or listen to, it appears the majority of the Health Service and public, and scrap the Bill? Decisions Decisions!

Then why not explain it in public? What's he afraid of if he's fully briefed?

I'm sure your heart's in the right place place but sometimes your forelock-tugging simply gets in the way of your arguments.

I'd quite like to see the issue debated. I suspect our MP is not overly keen to bless RG with credibility by engaging with him.

However, this is a national issue and for us there is little to be gained from a debate other than a clearer understanding of the proposed changes. I'd be very much more interested to see a Question Time-style debate on local issue with our local worthies as I think it would be genuinely helpful for them to listen more to us and each other away from the farce that is the council chamber, and it would be good for democracy for us to actually see them all in action and be able to make an informed choice at election-time based on their views and abilities and not just on the colour of their rosette.

I think this is the problem with politicians, they only want to debate at a stage managed session, they will not enter into debate without being very carefully briefed on each question first.

Our local politicians will not even give answers to this forum, which gives them time to think about the questions first and time to get briefed before giving answers, so no chance of a debate on something as important as our NHS.

I think the question must be asked now is democracy still alive?

From reading a little of the bill, I doubt if anyone could explain it to the public or be fully briefed. There are dozens of amendments published each day.

Anyhow it appears it is too late now as the majority of changes have already been implimented even before the debates in both houses. So it would appear I have found the answer to my own question:

"Democracy has been killed off by this coalition"

I tug forelock to no-one, thank you.

Neither do I 'argue' a point, merely put forward an opinion/observation......

Calm down, dear, it's only a local forum......

Perhaps there may be someone left to vote for in WBC after all?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-17419609

No, because they intend to stand as MPs, not Councillors. However, I like the idea of someone other than a career politician standing for election. As regards the Bill, it looks like these Drs represent a proportion of Consultants - people who will have to work harder if the dastardly GPs keep sending them patients? To validate the strength of their representation one would need to know how many are in the group in total, and why all members did not vote. 240 sounds impressive, but if they are only 5% of the total eligible and the others all refute the perspective, then the validity of the objection is reduced.

My WBC was meant as West Berkshire Constituency sorry should have made this clear? I do know the difference between MP's and Councillors - one ignores what his constituents want, the other ignores what his council taxpayers wants.

The aim of my claim is that there would at least be one candidate that I would perhaps be able to vote for as there is no choice as far as I am concerned with the other Cons. Libliars or New Labour.

GP's do not want the CCG's as far as I can ascertain. This job will be carried out by paid non medical consultants for him - the same as now funnily enough except the present non - medical consultans are not American.

Most of the Health compaines now being set up to share in the NHS spoils on offer appear to be American.
This is after the ex South Central SHA Chief Executive Mark Britnell told an American conference:
A senior adviser to David Cameron says the NHS could be improved by charging patients and will be transformed into a “state insurance provider, not a state deliverer” of care. Mark Britnell, who was appointed to a “kitchen cabinet” advising the prime minister on reforming the NHS, told a conference of executives from the private sector that future reforms would show “no mercy” to the NHS and offer a “big opportunity” to the for-profit sector.

Even more annoying

And now we have the prospect of Network Road - it worked so well with the railways we'd better do the same with the roads.

The House of Lords passed the Health and Social Care bill last night which effectively means that it will be enacted. Labour have forced a further debate on the refusal of the coalition to release the risk register but this is a sideshow. The Libdem's MPS - if not their party members - are solidly behind the bill so it will go through.

Ignore the Coalition denials: this is a systemic change which will, over time, bring about the break-up of the NHS, the introduction of charges and top-up payments (leading to a US style two-tier insurance funded system) and the wholesale transfer of public assets to the private sector (aka privatisation).

Agree. It's madness fuelled by extreme political ideology and a rosy tinted view of the pre-war past.

Agree. GP's, surgeons, midwifes and most of the professionals who work in health know this bill is wrong, but a wallpaper manufacturer thinks he knows better.