Clegg flexing his muscles

[StealthPolarBear]

Threatening to veto the NHS reforms unless they are substantially reformed.

How much power does he have? While I'd love to see it happen (reform or veto) I doubt either will actually happening, this is all a load of posturing

Sadly I think the Tories will give in on this - not because of the Lib Dems, but because they are scared stiff of reopening the NHS as a political issue when it had essentially been neutralised.

This is a huge shame. Just think of the huge improvements in quality and value that privatisation and competition would bring.

longfingernails - you are absolutely and totally wrong. Privatisation and competition would bring no benefits whatsoever in terms of quality or value.
I think Clegg is posturing - he has no power or influence at all and will let us down on this policy as he has on so many other things.

I think we'll have to agree to differ. I think privatisation will bring value at the expense of quality. I think the postcode lottery will be rife. I think private companies will never commission effectively as they will never have the full picture. As a colleague of mine put it, we'll have some guy with a nail file doing podiatry in his front room.

What exactly do you think they will give in on? Abolishion of the PCTs? Or just an agreement that whatever the new arrangements are, they won't involve "Tesco Health"?

x post NL. So you think he will be laughed at. Pity...

Clegg's just showing off. But the pause thing is interesting - the legislation has got so far they could just go ahead if they distracted everyone long enough. And PCTs are already draining staff. So it's almost a fait accompli.

I suspect there won't be any major changes - just a requirement for the GPs to include a couple of nurses on the board of consortia. Doubt any of the very serious accountability issues will be addressed. Currently the plans mean large swathes of the NHS being taken out of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, which is handy for the government...

I can't see the PCTS lasting - as Edam says - they are already leaking staff in vast numbers.

"And PCTs are already draining staff. So it's almost a fait accompli. "

Yes, my boss made the same point. They will chop and change and muddy the waters long enough and then they'll say "come on then, show us what you can do." Which, with a skeleton staff won't be much. So then we'll have had our chance, and they'll bring in Tesco Health (or similar).

Hadn't thought of the implications for FI - very good point

FOI!

This is what I expected. Thursday's results could be anticipated and the Coalition can't afford for there to be constant background rumblings about leadership elections from the LD camp or it'll get in the way of the business in hand. The conservatives know that the proposed NHS reforms are not winning favour as they stand and need revision. What better way to dampen the attacks on Clegg and legitimately adjust the reform bill at the same time than for the LDs to be seen to have a greater say? Next step will be that the LD front bench team takes a more vocal role in IDS's Welfare reforms. Watch this space.

Well, maybe if things are so dire in PCTs, then there is hope for the market approach after all.

Why should the State run hospitals and provide health services? I haven't heard a good argument for it yet, apart from sentiment.

As long as healthcare is free at the point of delivery, what objection is there? Do you object to IBM making a profit on NHS computers, or Phillips making a profit selling MRI machines to hospitals, or medical suppliers making a profit selling catheters to hospitals, or Bic making a profit selling pens to hospitals? Why, then, the objection to people making a profit from running hospitals?

My objection, longfingernails, is that healthcare universally run for profit provides the best service for shareholders NOT patients. Private healthcare actually restricts options and reduces care not increases it.

I think you're right Chil1234 - the timing of this pause around the referendum is so bleeding obvious - and I'm very depressed. If Clegg really were to be acting out of principle he'd oppose the NHS bill completely and put a stop to the closure of PCTs and insist on a long-term consultation over improving what already exists. But he won't, it will just be some pathetic tinkering with Lansley's Bill enabling Cameron to repackage it while pretending to be respectful. I hate them all.

"Well, maybe if things are so dire in PCTs, then there is hope for the market approach after all."

Well things are "so dire" because they have been told to wind down business - in fact I think their main business or 2012/13 is supporting consortia. So a strange argument really, I think the PCTs were doing fine before they were told their services were no longer needed.

"Why should the State run hospitals and provide health services? I haven't heard a good argument for it yet, apart from sentiment."
Conflict of interest. Healthcare is so vitally important that IMO the organisations responsible should be answerable to the elected government.

You're so right Northernlurker

StealthPolarBear Why has no other country come to that decision? Even countries who in almost every other way, are far to the left of Britain?

Healthcare in France seems perfectly reasonable - and yet the State doesn't feel the need to run the hospitals there.

No idea but I was under the impression the NHS was fairly well thought of world wide

I say was, as obviosly now it's becoming little more than a brand.

Not to get all conspiracy theorist but big business has a vested interest in keeping healthcare on the private sector. We have an NHS because of the vision and commitment of the post war labour government. Other countries don't have state healthcare like us because they didn't have that political impetus at a point when it was possible to implement it. In living memory across the world healthcare has been in reach of only those who could afford it. The NHS is the most radical solution to that problem.

The NHS was a catastrophic mistake, and remains so today. Of course in a civilised, developed country healthcare should be universally accessible - this is still a huge social failing in America.

On the other hand, governments just can't run things very well. We see it time and again and again. Why, then, do we want them to run the NHS?

I would have no objection, as a first-step, to mutualising the NHS. Make every local unit in a hospital owned by its employees. If full privatisation isn't politically palatable, that would still be a huge step in the right direction.

Governments don't run the NH - they fund it. Where things go wrong is when they think they are running it.

Do you not see that if the NHS is privatised there will be a market in making sure people are unhealthy and ill rather than healthy and well

and that care given is the bare minimum.

I work in a renal unit (admin not nursing). One of the things we spend your taxes on is dietetic services. You can give patients dietary advice to improve their health hugely. Our patients have constant access to this service and get advice tailored to them. In many priate units they would maybe get a one off consultation and some written advice. Patients don't follow written advice very well and fail to comply. This makes them sicker and so they require more expensive and less effective treatment. Under the NHS their health is maximised and the end costs reduced.

StealthPolarBear Only if you have someone as incompetent as Gordon Brown designing the regulation system (sadly, I could fully believe that Lansley is that incompetent).

But again, you don't see that happening in France, or Germany, or Canada - none of which have widespread publicly run hospitals, and none of which are known for poor healthcare.