Blair defeated over health plans

Bournemouth, UK: The BBC reports that:
Labour's leadership has suffered an embarrassing conference vote defeat over its controversial plans for foundation hospitals.
A motion tabled by the Unison union opposing the plans was carried on a show of hands shortly after a passionate defence of the proposals by Health Secretary John Reid.

The defeat is a blow for the leadership, but is unlikely to lead to a change of heart on the part of the government.

<snip>

more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3154346.stm

The party faithful, deprived of its chance to have a full Iraq debate, takes a swipe at Poodle knowing he is vulnerable on his doemstic agenda policies.....

At the end of the day, the motion has already passed in the house of commons. Like it or not, foundation hospitals are coming.

The wig boys in the Lords could throw it back in their face again! :D

it's separate from Iraq. There will be an Iraq-related debate and vote, which will be more of an indication of the party feeling:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/3154008.stm
"Delegates will be now able to debate Iraq and vote on Labour's foreign policy as a whole, after a deal for a 75-minute discussion was reached.


It came after an anti-war emergency resolution from the RMT rail union was thrown out.

The debate will be on the section covering the war in the National Policy Report on foreign affairs, which supports the government decision to go to war.

Labour officials insisted that there was always the chance of a debate and a vote on Iraq.

But union leaders said that this deal was only cobbled together on Tuesday night in a meeting of the conference arrangements committee.

One union source said they were happy with the outcome and feel this is an opportunity for those opposed to the war to express their feelings.
"

QUID PRO QUO

War will be skirted. The party gets to win this vote.

the local Hospital as a local charity - reducing government costs. Not a great idea, in my opinion.

Under the government's proposals hospitals could opt out of government control and become independent not-for-profit organisations. They would be able to borrow money on the private markets and set their own financial and clinical priorities. The "foundation hospitals" give local people the chance to control the hospital and MD's and to respond to patients' complaints - and to raise funds to improve/increase the capacity.

But why does this not develope a two-tier health service?

While they would remain part of the NHS and be monitored by stakeholder councils (whose members would be drawn from local communities) it appears a National Standard would be the standard for the "poor areas" of Great Britan.

Granted it is still National Health - easily available and free at the point of need - but does it take health services previous monopolised by those wealthy and give it to the poor - the idea being the wealthly will fund the improvement in the "foundation hospital" - or does it mean the wealthy continue with private for profit hospitals - and local middle class in poor areas can no longer ask London for funds to improve care?

I look forward to seeing what the move towards privatisation card vote reveals in the next few days - and to seeing if Blair pays any heed to that vote.

All I can say is thank the gods that Bush is Bush. If he was half as skilled, passionate, and seemingly sincere as Blair the Dems would be dead in the water. Despite the corruption of his government (I'm reading Palast right now) and his pandering to Anglo-American corporations (i.e. Bushco), I can't help but be impressed with the man's apparent vision, and indeed the man himself. In many ways he's quite comparable to Clinton. After all, who knows how Clinton would have reacted if a foreign power had him by the short-and-curlies and insisted that he follow their diktats or have his country economically ruined?

Do I forgive him? Well, people have died because he caved to Bush so I'm inclined to be harsh. On the other hand, it's easy to be an armchair idealist and I've yet to fathom Blair's true motivation regarding Iraq. The only thing I'm sure about is that it wasn't the threat of WMD or terrorism; Bush may be addled enough to believe his own propaganda (though I doubt it) but Blair is not. It comes down to this:

1) Britain is an independent sovereign nation which Blair sold-out in order to gain a post-government seat on the board of Carlyle.

2) Britain is, in fact, a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi-American interests and, in going to war, Blair was fulfilling his obligation to the Board of Directors.

3) Britain is indeed a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi-American interests and Blair acceded to blackmail in order to protect his a) job, b) progressive agenda or c) country.

Of the above, only 3b or 3c are forgivable in any way. Personally, I'm reserving judgement.

..fascism. What Blair is talking about -- creating more wealth for the poor and middle class, making more Brits happier, healthier, and wealthier -- those are the bulwarks against fascism. The only way to get those things is by getting them in increments. And while you're getting them incrementally, you have to fight off battles from the RW, from the media, and from the farther left of your own party.

You can be sure that Blair has the best interests of his citizens in mind, and you can be sure that he wants real change, and you can't get that change from being in opposition.

As for foreign policy, I think what people don't realize is that it's possible for something that is, from Bush's perpective, conservative-fascist imperialism, to be from Britiain's perspective, a liberal internationalism.

Blair is not involved in Iraq to further any imperialist, wealth shifting/concentrating goals, as Bush is doing. He's trying to prevent the US from totally controlling the ME, and therefore, the European economy, and he's trying to ensure that Europe has a say in what goes on there, and he's trying to prevent the UK from taking a rightward isolationist turn. No country can have liberalism at home if it isn't willing to engage in liberal internationalism abroad (with great power comes great responsibility).

People (due to an irresponsible media) forget that Blair tried to talk the US out of invading Iraq. Of course, nothing was going to stop Bush. So the next question is, what do you do. Turning inward, cutting Britain and Europe off from the ME (their next door neighbor, and the source of the literal fuel of European economic growth) was not an option.

The history of America is marked by the conflicts between isolationism and internationalism. RW voters tend to be isolationists. RW politicians want to do what makes money. If engaging means making money, they need to sell it in a way that satisfies RW voters. When LW voters become isolationists, then you have real problems. FDR knew this. He knew that liberalism at home depended on fighting imperialism and fascism abroad. It's hard to engage voters on these issues, but, like I said, when you have power, you have a responsibilty to engage in a liberal internationalism. In the case of Iraq, British isolationism would give the US free reign in the Middle East, which woud, without a doubt, then be used defeat domestic liberalism one nation at a time in Europe.

These are the complicated problems confronting Blair.

I thought yesterday's speech was a brilliant engagement on these issues, and he historicized the political reality over the last 20 years brilliantly.

Living in the States under Bush has made me more cynical than I would wish to be, but I still hold out hope that Blair is acting out of necessity. Hard not to forgive those here that castigate Blair on a daily basis, though. Any informed American who is not blinded by self-interest has been inundated with evidence of the Bushies' vileness for three years. Seeing Blair in the role of cheerleader for this corrupt administration is maddening, to say the least.

BTW the speech was, indeed, very impressive. I particularly enjoyed the bit about "compassionate conservatives". Laughed out loud. :-)

I respectfully disagree 100% with your view of Tony Blair. At the same time, I understand that the Tories would be about a billion times worse.

At least in this country Bush had the capability to actually honestly state that the plurality of the electorate supported military action in Iraq. In Britain, except for a brief spike after the "end" of the war, public opinion was always greatly AGAINST military intervention.

In a democratic society, a leader works for the people he's supposed to be representing. In a dictatorship, a leader tells people what they're going to do and that's what happens. Which of these best suits Blair's actions in getting Britain into war?

Iraq is hardly the first issue in which Tony Blair has showed a blatant disregard not just for his own party, but especially for the people who are directly effected by his whims. I would call him a Bush patsy, but it goes far far beyond that.

I only hope there's a way he can get his come-uppance AND have the Tories remain out of power.

"In a democratic society, a leader works for the people he's supposed to be representing."

Perhaps he was. I don't know the full reasons why Blair followed Bush's lead, and, with respect, neither do you. We do know that, through Murdoch, the Bush administration was, from the beginning, telling Blair to toe the line or else. We know that American corporations have the power (sometimes literally in the case of Reliant etc) to wreck the UK's economy. We know that the Bush Administration is vindictive and vengeful, regardless of consequences, as has been proved yet again just recently. Given the above, AP's scenario is as valid as any other.

Sometimes we forget that neither the US or UK is now, or ever has been, a true democracy. Direct democratic rule by the people can be just as undesirable as dictatorship. I agree absolutely that the governing power should represent the best interests of the people, but to have policy dictated by the masses, knowing full well that the masses are generally under-educated and uninformed, is to abrogate the responsibility of leadership. We elect leaders precisely because it is impossible to share the necessary knowledge for appropriate governance with the entire populace. The important thing is that the people be informed accurately and well enough to make a sound decision about which potential leaders can be trusted to represent them honestly. Hence the absolute necessity for a truly free press, and, not incidentally, a fair and transparent system of elections.

Fortunately for the British people, their press is still free enough for dissent to be heard and, for the most part, their electoral system hasn't yet become the private property of corporations. If the people of Britain are sufficiently unhappy with Blair, they still have a chance to do something about it. Unlike, increasingly, their American cousins.

the channel 4 documentary the other day:

------------------
NEWS: Inside the Mind of Tony Blair
Channel: Channel 4
Date: Sunday 28th September 2003
Time: 20:00 to 21:00 (Already shown)
Duration: 1 hour.
Documentary which examines the psyche of Tony Blair at a time when he is under more pressure than ever before. It looks at the psychology of leadership and how the Prime Minister reacts to the political dilemmas that face him from one day to the next. With contributions from fellow MPs, journalists and psychologists.

------------------


It was interesting because the consensus was that blair makes himself believe things that are false.
That adds another dimension to the iraq question.

It showed some amazing footage of him freezing up under heckling etc..

They don't need psychology to explain what Blair is doing. They need to understand POLITICS.

I am so worried about the future of liberal democracy between watching the media try to take apart Blair in the UK and democracy in CA, and DC.