Worried about the new 'Health Bill'?

Feedingseagulls · 9th February 2012, 16:04

Register your disapproval here:

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/22670

Mozza · 9th February 2012, 23:00

Very worried, we've just had the PIP breast implant business with the private sector refusing to pick up the tab having sold dodgy product leaving the NHS to fix their mess, this bill will lead to this situation on a much larger scale. Difference being what will be left of the NHS to rescue the public will be so much smaller.

Team Brian GB · 9th February 2012, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mozza

Very worried, we've just had the PIP breast implant business with the private sector refusing to pick up the tab having sold dodgy product leaving the NHS to fix their mess, this bill will lead to this situation on a much larger scale. Difference being what will be left of the NHS to rescue the public will be so much smaller.

No it wouldn't.

Mozza · 9th February 2012, 23:41

You say that but the as your chums in the city and the surgeons doing boob jobs have shown privatising profits and socialising losses is the reality

rednev · 10th February 2012, 13:50

Quote:

Cameron should scrap NHS bill and drop Lansley, says influential Tory blog.

ConservativeHome editor says health secretary has failed to win public support for health and social care bill.

David Cameron has been urged to replace Andrew Lansley and drop large chunks of the health bill by the Conservative party's most widely read and influential website.

Tim Montgomerie, the editor of ConservativeHome, said in a post published on Friday that Lansley, the health secretary, had failed to win public support for the legislation and that, if the Tories did not back down, every problem with the NHS over the next three years would be blamed on the bill.

The ConservativeHome intervention is particularly damaging to Cameron because Montgomerie says he was encouraged to speak out by three Conservative cabinet minsters who believe that pressing ahead with the bill would be folly.

"One was insistent the bill must be dropped. Another said Andrew Lansley must be replaced. Another likened the NHS reforms to the poll tax," says Montgomerie in his article.

"The consensus is that the prime minister needs an external shock to wake him to the scale of the problem."

ConservativeHome is not officially linked to the Conservative party. But it is read by thousands of activists, whose views it broadly represents, and, although it does criticise government policy, it is generally supportive and not given to gratuitous attacks on the party leadership.

On Friday Montgomerie told the Today programme why he had decided to publish his article. "I wrote this blog this morning because I think the feeling is David Cameron isn't listening enough to internal party feeling and this is why I have gone public," he said.

As the Guardian reported on Thursday, Cameron and Nick Clegg have decided to press ahead with the bill, which is still in the House of Lords, even though it has become a political liability. This week the Times quoted a Downing Street source saying Lansley should be "taken out and shot" because he was handling the issue so badly.

But Montgomerie argues that if the bill does become law, it will lead to the coalition being blamed for everything that goes wrong with the NHS between now and the election.

"The NHS has always gobbled up resources and creaked. The creaking was severe when spending was increasing by 3% or 4% in real terms every year," he writes.

"What do you think it's going to be like when spending is increasing by 0.1% year after year after year in this longest ever period of UK-wide austerity? The creaking could have been blamed on the empty Treasury and Labour's over-borrowing. Not now. It will now be unfairly blamed on the bill and a bill that is not only mangled and bureaucratic, but also unnecessary."

Montgomerie says Cameron faces a choice. "Path one involves removing all contentious components of the bill," he writes. A gutted bill could then be passed with cross-party agreement. "It would be humiliating to forge such a cross-party deal but the humiliation would subside over a few weeks.

"Path two involves pressing on. It's the path that, despite his rhetoric, Ed Miliband prays the coalition will tread. Pressing on avoids the immediate political pain but leaves the chronic electoral problem in place. By 'succeeding' in enacting a contentious bill every inevitable problem that arises in the NHS in the years ahead will be blamed on it. That's a heavy price to pay for a bill that is neither transformational nor necessary."

Montgomerie, who says that Cameron's "greatest political achievement" as leader of the opposition was to stop the Conservatives being seen as an anti-NHS party, says Lansley should go. "He hasn't been able to communicate these reforms in a streetwise way," Montgomerie says.

Echoing a point repeatedly made by Stephen Dorrell, the former Conservative health secretary who now chairs the Commons health select committee, Montgomerie says that implementing structural NHS reform is perilous at a time when the NHS already has to find savings of £20bn.

Reacting to the ConservativeHome editorial, shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said: "We already know that the Prime Minister isn't listening to doctors and nurses. But it's a shock to find out that even senior members of his own Cabinet have to take to a Conservative website to get through to him about the damage he is doing to the NHS.

"It couldn't be clearer: this is an out-of-touch Prime Minister who is putting his political pride before the best interests of the NHS," he said.

"David Cameron promised to protect the NHS but every day he digs in behind his Bill, he damages it further."

The ConservativeHome broadside was published after it was revealed that Lib Dem activists want to call a vote on scrapping the bill at the Lib Dem spring conference next month.

The Lib Dem leadership managed to keep a second health rebellion off the agenda of the autumn conference, but will face intense grassroots pressure if it tries to prevent debate again. An emergency motion can be kept off the floor of the conference if it is not deemed an emergency by the federal conference committee, or it is not selected for debate in a ballot of delegates.

In an effort to keep up the pressure on the coalition, Labour has agreed to hold an opposition day debate later this month demanding publication of the bill's risk register, a confidential government document setting out all the risks associated with the legislation.

Critics believe the risk register, which Lansley has repeatedly refused to publish, contains damning warnings about rising costs and confusion. Concern has been heightened after it emerged on Wednesday that a risk assessment by the London NHS warned some organisations could fail financially and care, including maternity and children's services and public health, could suffer. Such is the anger about the register that nine Liberal Democrats are already among 50 MPs who have signed an early day motion also calling for it to be published – and Labour believes more Lib Dems will support its move.

To put further pressure on the coalition, Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, will urge Labour MPs to visit hospitals and surgeries during next week's half-term break, so they can recount their stories from the NHS frontline in the debate on 22 February. "The defining question in this debate now is, by pressing on and not listening, to what extent are they putting patient safety and quality of services at risk, and that's why the risk register becomes absolutely central to this," said Burnham.

Lansley faced fresh embarrassment on Friday when a report by the right-of-centre thinktank Reform said the government's entire reform of public services was being undermined by the Department of Health's management of NHS changes.

Cameron should scrap NHS bill and drop Lansley, says influential Tory blog | Society | The Guardian

What will it take for the government to get the message? Nobody wants these changes.

Team Brian GB · 10th February 2012, 22:14

That I do not disagree with.

africanspur · 10th February 2012, 23:09

Honstly, are they still persisting with this bullshit? The NHS needs reform but this is crap. Medical groups are against it, the general public is against it and even the staunchest of Tories are against it.

Accept you got it wrong and move on.

x42bn6 · 10th February 2012, 23:13

What does overwhelming opposition look like?

Ubik · 10th February 2012, 23:35

They'll carry on regardless, they legislated for 5-year terms so that they can afford to be deeply unpopular when the election is still ages away.

As many u-turns as there have been already, this would eclipse them all. Cameron doesn't want to look that weak.

bsc · 11th February 2012, 16:44

Lansley's been planning this bill for 6 years so it has nothing to do with austerity anyway.

Even the blindest person can see it's ideological; bankrolled by big health companies.

Warsi's response to that ConHome article yesterday was laughable as well. I imagine even Tories are embarrassed by her.

Mozza · 17th February 2012, 16:38

Privatise the profits, socialise the losses

PIP implants: Over 2,800 referred for NHS care

Feedingseagulls · 17th February 2012, 19:16

Over 140k sigs now - but there are problems with the Govt providing time for the debate.

711 · 17th February 2012, 19:34

Whether one agrees with this bill or not, let it not be forgotten that it was proposed just weeks after a general election in which such changes were mentioned not once. Whatever else, this bill was dishonest from the start.

Agent Red · 17th February 2012, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by 711

Whether one agrees with this bill or not, let it not be forgotten that it was proposed just weeks after a general election in which such changes were mentioned not once. Whatever else, this bill was dishonest from the start.

Indeed. The whole thing is thoroughly undemocratic. Half the dismantling doesn't even seem to need any legislation passed, they can just plough on with it anyway.

Even if we got a decent government in power it would be very hard for them to reverse the changes. The whole thing has really got me down, and I feel sorry for friends of mine who are having to work on a bill that they personally think is deeply flawed.

Commadus · 18th February 2012, 01:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mozza

Privatise the profits, socialise the losses

PIP implants: Over 2,800 referred for NHS care

The irony is that its probably the same dr you saw who refused the private removal but now will remove when its on the NHS dime.

evra · 18th February 2012, 01:16

Worried about the new "Health Bill"? No I can't say I am, I haven't read the thing and I suspect I'm not alone in that. The Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS which is more than I can say for New Labour. Frankly I don't buy this "don't trust the Tories with our NHS" line. They've shown more of a commitment to the NHS than New Labour have.

sajeev · 18th February 2012, 07:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by evra

Worried about the new "Health Bill"? No I can't say I am, I haven't read the thing and I suspect I'm not alone in that. The Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS which is more than I can say for New Labour. Frankly I don't buy this "don't trust the Tories with our NHS" line. They've shown more of a commitment to the NHS than New Labour have.

i guess you wouldn't be worried by anything the Tories do

Don't Kill Bill · 18th February 2012, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by evra

Worried about the new "Health Bill"? No I can't say I am, I haven't read the thing and I suspect I'm not alone in that. The Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS which is more than I can say for New Labour. Frankly I don't buy this "don't trust the Tories with our NHS" line. They've shown more of a commitment to the NHS than New Labour have.

They also said that the NHS was suffering from reform fatigue, so they wouldn't be carrying out any more top down reform. Now I read that it turns out they have been planning this for six years.

711 · 18th February 2012, 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don't Kill Bill

They also said that the NHS was suffering from reform fatigue, so they wouldn't be carrying out any more top down reform. Now I read that it turns out they have been planning this for six years.

It must have taken a great deal of planning. Planning in secret that was not mentioned once in their election campaign. And Cameron lectures the world on the benefits of democracy. He should fucking try it sometime.

Agent Red · 18th February 2012, 11:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by evra

Worried about the new "Health Bill"? No I can't say I am, I haven't read the thing and I suspect I'm not alone in that. The Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS which is more than I can say for New Labour. Frankly I don't buy this "don't trust the Tories with our NHS" line. They've shown more of a commitment to the NHS than New Labour have.

How? By introducing reforms that are opposed by the vast majority of those working in the Healthcare system? By contracting segments of the NHS off to private contractors who will introduce a profit motive into providing healthcare? How is that a 'commitment' to the NHS? It goes against the founding principle of 'cradle to grave' care.

All your post there has said is essentially 'I haven't read it, but I prefer the Conservatives to New Labour, and the Conservatives say they're going to make it better so therefore I'm not worried'. I'm sure you can see why those of us with less faith in the party/any party would be worried about this?

The politicians pushing this through are doing so despite the concerns of almost all those involved or that will be affected. I think it's really foolish to ignore the concerns of the doctors, nurses, researchers and patients. They're the ones that will be delivering and receiving the service. If they don't see the logic behind it, or feel that it's going to limit their ability to provide the best care, it's going to be really hard for them to continue with their work without standards dropping in some areas.

#07 · 18th February 2012, 11:41

Honestly speaking I'm not worried about the new health bill. I admit to not having read it but really what's going to change? GPs might control more of the budgets? Yeah and...? Politicians always make promises about the NHS. Thatcher did fundholding GPS, Blair did PCTs and foundation hospitals, Cameron's doing his thing...

There's always a reorganisation under every government. From my perspective as a user of those services nothing much changes it just allows the government of the day to 'show they care' and 'demonstrate their commitment to improving health outcomes'. I mean if someone gave me a pound coin for every time a Health Secretary or Shadow Health Secretary wheeled out those cliches I'd be richer than Ronaldo!

There will be changes to the NHS under this government, there will be changes under the next government, and it will go on and on and on. Every government that comes in will tinker with the NHS and promise that what they'll do will make it so much better. That's as much a fact of life as the truth that every government will promise schools' reform and every government will find a way to jack up taxes. My biggest shock will be if as a result of Lansley's plan something actually changes?

We already have private providers running hospitals, out of hours emergency hotlines and providing out of hours GPs and have for years. So I don't see why people are becoming animated by this. Far as I can see most of what Lansley is doing just follows on from what Blair did. Didn't make much of a difference under Tony won't make much of a difference under Dave.

What would really make me take notice is if a Health Secretary just stood up in Parliament and said actually we can't make it better. We can't tax people any more than we do and we cannot borrow more money than we do so there you go this is it. It ain't perfect but it ain't awful either. We'll do our best to make sure its at least decent for everyone but we can't promise huge improvements especially with people living longer and getting more problems in old age that we need to take care of.

Never happen though too many votes in it.

evra · 18th February 2012, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Red

How? By introducing reforms that are opposed by the vast majority of those working in the Healthcare system? By contracting segments of the NHS off to private contractors who will introduce a profit motive into providing healthcare? How is that a 'commitment' to the NHS? It goes against the founding principle of 'cradle to grave' care.

All your post there has said is essentially 'I haven't read it, but I prefer the Conservatives to New Labour, and the Conservatives say they're going to make it better so therefore I'm not worried'. I'm sure you can see why those of us with less faith in the party/any party would be worried about this?

The politicians pushing this through are doing so despite the concerns of almost all those involved or that will be affected. I think it's really foolish to ignore the concerns of the doctors, nurses, researchers and patients. They're the ones that will be delivering and receiving the service. If they don't see the logic behind it, or feel that it's going to limit their ability to provide the best care, it's going to be really hard for them to continue with their work without standards dropping in some areas.

Because the Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS, New Labour did not. Unless I've missed a massive scandal the Conservatives haven't gone back on that promise.

Let's be frank, most people working in the NHS are opposed to anything the Conservatives do, forgive me if I suspect them of blindly opposing any reform. Personally I would say that the NHS is inefficient, having worked in NHS finance (summer job at uni) I observed a shocking lack of concern for budgets and efficiency savings. The ethos in that PCT was; if we don't spend our budget then it will be reduced next year. Like most people in this thread I haven't read the bill but I have met Andrew Lansley; if he's behind the bill then I'm behind it.

Agent Red · 18th February 2012, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by evra

Because the Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS, New Labour did not. Unless I've missed a massive scandal the Conservatives haven't gone back on that promise.

Let's be frank, most people working in the NHS are opposed to anything the Conservatives do, forgive me if I suspect them of blindly opposing any reform. Personally I would say that the NHS is inefficient, having worked in NHS finance (summer job at uni) I observed a shocking lack of concern for budgets and efficiency savings. The ethos in that PCT was; if we don't spend our budget then it will be reduced next year. Like most people in this thread I haven't read the bill but I have met Andrew Lansley; if he's behind the bill then I'm behind it.

Neither governing party included these drastic changes in their manifesto, despite the fact the changes are so huge. Lansley's Health are refusing to release information that really ought to be known by the public, despite the Information Commissioner declaring it illegal not to do so. If all these changes are certain to be positive ones, why not release the risks?

It's exceeding arrogance to just say 'we know best, and the NHS don't like us anyway so we'll ignore them'. This level of opposition isn't customary, so take notice of it! Why on earth would politicians know more about the front line delivery of a product that those delivering it? Of course they won't.

I agree that there's inefficiency there, that isn't being disputed, what is being disputed is how best to deal with that, and the majority feel that this isn't the best way to improve efficiency. Yet it's being pushed through anyway via various loopholes which mean that minimal legislation actually has to be passed and information can be sat on until motions have already been passed.

If you only read a party's official line for anything, of course you're going to think it's brilliant, that's their job! Saying, 'I've met Andrew Lansley and am therefore behind it' is bizarre. So because you met him once and liked him, there's no chance there could be any mistakes in the bill? You're not going to read the bill, but support it because you love the blues? I've never understood tribalism in politics. It's not like football where loyalty is assumed. Parties make both bad and good decisions, supporting everything they do blindly without even reading it is a really illogical approach.

evra · 18th February 2012, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Red

Neither governing party included these drastic changes in their manifesto, despite the fact the changes are so huge. Lansley's Health are refusing to release information that really ought to be known by the public, despite the Information Commissioner declaring it illegal not to do so. If all these changes are certain to be positive ones, why not release the risks?

It's exceeding arrogance to just say 'we know best, and the NHS don't like us anyway so we'll ignore them'. This level of opposition isn't customary, so take notice of it! Why on earth would politicians know more about the front line delivery of a product that those delivering it? Of course they won't.

I agree that there's inefficiency there, that isn't being disputed, what is being disputed is how best to deal with that, and the majority feel that this isn't the best way to improve efficiency. Yet it's being pushed through anyway via various loopholes which mean that minimal legislation actually has to be passed and information can be sat on until motions have already been passed.

If you only read a party's official line for anything, of course you're going to think it's brilliant, that's their job! Saying, 'I've met Andrew Lansley and am therefore behind it' is bizarre. So because you met him once and liked him, there's no chance there could be any mistakes in the bill? You're not going to read the bill, but support it because you love the blues? I've never understood tribalism in politics. It's not like football where loyalty is assumed. Parties make both bad and good decisions, supporting everything they do blindly without even reading it is a really illogical approach.

I don't have time to read the bill, many people who are passing judgement on the bill don't have time to read the bill. Democracy in this country is largely indirect; we elect people we have confidence in and we allow them to get on with the business of running the country.

I stand by my point that most people in the NHS, and as a matter of fact most people in the public sector, will always oppose anything the Conservatives do. They want to go back to the blank cheque ways of New Labour and will do anything to undermine the government. For that reason I don't take their opposition to this bill too seriously.

Agent Red · 18th February 2012, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by evra

I don't have time to read the bill, many people who are passing judgement on the bill don't have time to read the bill. Democracy in this country is largely indirect; we elect people we have confidence in and we allow them to get on with the business of running the country.

I stand by my point that most people in the NHS, and as a matter of fact most people in the public sector, will always oppose anything the Conservatives do. They want to go back to the blank cheque ways of New Labour and will do anything to undermine the government. For that reason I don't take their opposition to this bill too seriously.

Ok well we clearly have quite different approaches to things then, fair enough. If I don't know much about something I don't see the point in commenting on it. I don't feel like either party is infallible, and therefore like to read the stuff myself before giving them my backing. There have been times when I have voted for one candidate, only for them to then back some policies I disagree with, leading to me not voting for them again in the future. Or vice versa, someone I wasn't keen on who then introduces some good stuff, and I will consider voting for them as a result.

I disagree with your views on the NHS and the public sector from a wider point of view, but it's a view I've heard before definitely. It's clear in some quarters certainly, but there's no universal political view across the millions of people that work in those establishments. I also think the idea that the public sector 'will do anything to undermine the government' is an inaccurate assertion.

If Ministers didn't have faith in the recommendations provided to them, they would advocate a move to an American system where there is a politicized civil service that clears out every change of government. There's a reason why they don't do that, the impartiality clause is taken extremely seriously. There's a reason why so many of the permanent secretaries and other members of the SCS have had productive and positive relationships with so many different ministers, of differing political persuasions. If they were constantly moving to undermine them, they'd be out of a job.

9th February 2012, 16:04	#1 (permalink)
Feedingseagulls First Team Regular Join Date: May 2004 Location: Beyond Good & Evil Posts: 11,293	Worried about the new 'Health Bill'? Register your disapproval here: https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/22670

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Worried about the new 'Health Bill'?

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

9th February 2012, 23:00	#2 (permalink)
Mozza Mrs Carrick Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Let Rooney be Rooney Posts: 19,805	Very worried, we've just had the PIP breast implant business with the private sector refusing to pick up the tab having sold dodgy product leaving the NHS to fix their mess, this bill will lead to this situation on a much larger scale. Difference being what will be left of the NHS to rescue the public will be so much smaller.

9th February 2012, 23:41	#4 (permalink)
Mozza Mrs Carrick Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Let Rooney be Rooney Posts: 19,805	You say that but the as your chums in the city and the surgeons doing boob jobs have shown privatising profits and socialising losses is the reality

10th February 2012, 22:14	#6 (permalink)
Team Brian GB Baby Cameron loves X-Factor Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 16,051	That I do not disagree with.

10th February 2012, 23:09	#7 (permalink)
africanspur Reserve Team Player Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,492	Honstly, are they still persisting with this bullshit? The NHS needs reform but this is crap. Medical groups are against it, the general public is against it and even the staunchest of Tories are against it. Accept you got it wrong and move on.

10th February 2012, 23:13	#8 (permalink)
x42bn6 First Team Regular Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: 西田麻衣の谷間. Being a nerd, geek and virgin Posts: 17,357	What does overwhelming opposition look like?

10th February 2012, 23:35	#9 (permalink)
Ubik Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,368	They'll carry on regardless, they legislated for 5-year terms so that they can afford to be deeply unpopular when the election is still ages away. As many u-turns as there have been already, this would eclipse them all. Cameron doesn't want to look that weak.

11th February 2012, 16:44	#10 (permalink)
bsc First Team Sub Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Stretford End - 3103 Posts: 5,712	Lansley's been planning this bill for 6 years so it has nothing to do with austerity anyway. Even the blindest person can see it's ideological; bankrolled by big health companies. Warsi's response to that ConHome article yesterday was laughable as well. I imagine even Tories are embarrassed by her.

17th February 2012, 16:38	#11 (permalink)
Mozza Mrs Carrick Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Let Rooney be Rooney Posts: 19,805	Privatise the profits, socialise the losses PIP implants: Over 2,800 referred for NHS care

17th February 2012, 19:16	#12 (permalink)
Feedingseagulls First Team Regular Join Date: May 2004 Location: Beyond Good & Evil Posts: 11,293	Over 140k sigs now - but there are problems with the Govt providing time for the debate.

17th February 2012, 19:34	#13 (permalink)
711 Real Caftard Fantasy Champ 2009 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Would posters please stop listing our own players. We all know who they are and it's driving me fucking mad. Posts: 7,281	Whether one agrees with this bill or not, let it not be forgotten that it was proposed just weeks after a general election in which such changes were mentioned not once. Whatever else, this bill was dishonest from the start.

18th February 2012, 01:16	#16 (permalink)
evra First Team Sub Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right. Posts: 8,037	Worried about the new "Health Bill"? No I can't say I am, I haven't read the thing and I suspect I'm not alone in that. The Conservatives agreed to ring-fence spending on the NHS which is more than I can say for New Labour. Frankly I don't buy this "don't trust the Tories with our NHS" line. They've shown more of a commitment to the NHS than New Labour have.

18th February 2012, 11:41	#21 (permalink)
#07 Reserve Team Player Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 3,071	Honestly speaking I'm not worried about the new health bill. I admit to not having read it but really what's going to change? GPs might control more of the budgets? Yeah and...? Politicians always make promises about the NHS. Thatcher did fundholding GPS, Blair did PCTs and foundation hospitals, Cameron's doing his thing... There's always a reorganisation under every government. From my perspective as a user of those services nothing much changes it just allows the government of the day to 'show they care' and 'demonstrate their commitment to improving health outcomes'. I mean if someone gave me a pound coin for every time a Health Secretary or Shadow Health Secretary wheeled out those cliches I'd be richer than Ronaldo! There will be changes to the NHS under this government, there will be changes under the next government, and it will go on and on and on. Every government that comes in will tinker with the NHS and promise that what they'll do will make it so much better. That's as much a fact of life as the truth that every government will promise schools' reform and every government will find a way to jack up taxes. My biggest shock will be if as a result of Lansley's plan something actually changes? We already have private providers running hospitals, out of hours emergency hotlines and providing out of hours GPs and have for years. So I don't see why people are becoming animated by this. Far as I can see most of what Lansley is doing just follows on from what Blair did. Didn't make much of a difference under Tony won't make much of a difference under Dave. What would really make me take notice is if a Health Secretary just stood up in Parliament and said actually we can't make it better. We can't tax people any more than we do and we cannot borrow more money than we do so there you go this is it. It ain't perfect but it ain't awful either. We'll do our best to make sure its at least decent for everyone but we can't promise huge improvements especially with people living longer and getting more problems in old age that we need to take care of. Never happen though too many votes in it.