Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label NHS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHS. Show all posts
BAM 🔨 This week it was reported that 350 people were on trolleys in accident and emergency departments in Northern Ireland waiting for a hospital bed. Written by Jonathan Traynor. Recommended by Christopher Owens.

When one sees elderly patients waiting for 36 hours, when one sees staff in casualty juggling multiple patient conditions, when one sees ward staff desperately free up space it is clear that the health and care sector is broken.

The number of workers is below what it should be. The number of hospital beds is too low. As to the residential and nursing homes there are too few.

What this means is that Northern Ireland can no longer have a health and social care sector that caters for all of the population.

For decades it has been clear that there is an aging population. The demographics are clear, have been clear for all professionals and casual observers alike. It is almost right years since Professor Rafael Bengoa published the report Systems not Structures. The report pointed to a series of reforms and ways forward.

A quick glance at the Department of Health reporting on progress reveals that there are transformation boards, groups, conferences and such like.

Continue reading @ BAM.

Health Service Broken – Is It Beyond Repair?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ On Wednesday 5th July the UK NHS will be seventy-five years old. 

Founded in 1948 by the labour government of Clement Atlee it was designed to give health care ‘free at the point of need’ irrespective of a person’s income or personal wealth. A great idea spearheaded by the Welsh firebrand Aneurin Bevan under the slogan ‘never again’ meaning ‘never again’ will a person’s right to health care depend on how much money they had it their wallet. Now, seventy-five years on where is the National Health Service going under the misrule of capitalism and their various lackeys in government? 

Originally the service was to be funded by general taxation, chiefly income tax, and under the post war political consensus it ran like a well-oiled machine. So, what went wrong? In today’s world of capitalist greed and rising unemployment, in real terms, it does not take the brains of a mathematical genius to work out that with fewer people working the income tax pot does not have as much in it for this funding. The rich and powerful won’t pay, they all have private health care, often using NHS consultants and doctors which should be stopped. These people, the owners of the means of production, don’t give a fuck for anybody else so long as their class continue to rule! 

So, what is the answer? It is my view that various British Governments are trying to privatise the NHS while, at the same time, telling people the NHS is ‘safe in our hands’ which of course it evidently is not. Despite their hot air and filibustering various governments since the 1960s have presided over the cuts in the NHS. Ironically the government of Harold Wilson instituted the first round of ‘rationalisation’ in his first administration in 1964. This was not Wilsons choice as he soon found out who the real government, irrespective of which political party occupy the office, were and are. The money men and women, the capitalist class.

During the 1960s the first cracks appeared in the postwar political consensus in Britain. The six counties did not have this as they were governed, or misgoverned, by the Unionist party. With these cracks came cuts to public services including the NHS. Whether the six counties were governed by the unionists or not their funding came from the UK government in London so the cuts in the NHS affected them as well. Even Terence O’Neil voiced moderate concern about lack of funding, however I’m deviating from the main point here. The ruling classes no longer needed a large healthy workforce (wage slaves) and therefore perceived no real need for a fully funded NHS as technology could do much of the work once carried out by people. Today that technology is far more advanced than back in the 1960s as the quality of health care has deteriorated!

The staff in the NHS are not paid adequately for the work and service they provide, similar to the HSE in the 26 counties. For the first time in its 104 year history the Nurses union, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) have taken, as a last resort and through desperation, strike action. This mode of action should tell us all something. The nursing profession do not go on strike for a laugh but because they have been pushed as far as they can be. Now junior doctors are taking industrial action and will soon be joined by senior doctors, the Consultants. They will provide emergency cover because that is the kind of people they are, caring, but they have to make a stance over this issue.

The RCN General Secretary, Patricia Cullen, has asked many times for talks over this year’s pay with government and each time she has been, quite frankly, insulted. British Health Secretary Steve Barclay keeps repeating in parrot fashion it is ‘not the job of government to get involved in management union pay talks.’ Well, what the fuck is the job of a Secretary of State for Health? This British Government appear to have washed their hands on the NHS but for what reason if this is the case, Privatisation? More and more advertising space is being given to private health companies like Bupa, Axa, Allianz, General Medical and many others as the landscape of the UKs health insurance is constantly evolving to respond to customer’s demand. This undermines the NHS which may well become a poor person’s safety net at best. As the maxim goes; ‘if health is something money can buy, then the rich will live and the poor will die’. Unfortunately, the Labour opposition are offering no radical alternative.

Here in the 26-Counties we have no National Health Service as such but we do have excellent doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of them and the management of the HSE (Health Service Executive) is barely fit for purpose. Nurses are leaving in their droves as countries such as the USA and Australia offer far better packages in wages and working conditions. In the UK, NHS staff are joining this exodus! How much longer are people going to tolerate their health service not providing a service? The NHS is still ahead in terms of provision of the HSE but the gap is narrowing. This is not because the HSE is improving, it certainly is not, but the result of the NHS deteriorating. In the 26-Counties we have Voluntary Health Insurance (VHI) which is to all intents and purposes private health care and the UK appear hell bent on following suit. The difference in quality of care between private and public care in the UK is huge. The NHS was formed on the principle of ‘never again’ meaning ‘never again’ will a person’s standard of health care depend on how much money they have, ‘never again’ will money be able to buy life, but unfortunately that is now what has evolved! Aneurin Bevan must be turning in his grave!!

Today in Britain 15,000 people are in hospital beds who do not need to be. Why? Because there is a lack of care in the community. More staff are needed in this department just the same as staff are needed in hospitals. Much community care is managed by private companies who exist for profit and profit only. With less staff to provide a service working longer hours for shit pay there is little wonder a lack of community care exists. All care, hospital, GPs and community should be under the umbrella of a fully funded and fully staffed National Health Service. All private health care should be taken over by the government and incorporated into the NHS. On Sunday 2nd July David from the six counties texted Laura Kuenssberg on the Sunday Morning Politics Show to say;

I would never have seen the light of day if it was not for the excellent care my mother received from the NHS back in 1951. We must preserve the NHS even if this means increasing taxation.

Well said David,  I couldn’t agree more and remember back in 1951 full employment and therefore larger income tax levels were the commitment of government under the post war political consensus. This is not the case today. The NHS needs a steady flow of cash not occasional lump sums, albeit large amounts, and general taxation always was the cornerstone of funding, much of this funding already comes from private concerns. Instead, the UK government are hell bent on tax cuts especially for the rich and the Labour opposition under Keir Starmer are little different. These tax cuts mean less money for public services including the already underfunded NHS. 

The NHS does still offer treatment ‘free at the point of need’ but less services are covered. Already patients have to pay for treatment of certain kinds which were once covered by the ‘free at the point of need’ service. So, where now for the NHS? Further evidence of the government's - all British Governments - relentless pursuit towards privatisation of the NHS can be found in the 2017 Naylor report for raising funds for the NHS. In this report Sir Robert Naylor recommends the NHS, in conjunction with private companies will be forced to sell off property for a pittance, old obsolete hospitals for example to these private concerns who will renovate them and use them as private hospitals for profit, further undermining the NHS. Sir Robert claimed this would raise £10 billion for the NHS, which it may well have done. What would have been wrong with the government renovating these old hospitals, not all disused, raising taxes to fund them, and giving them back to the NHS? Why do we keep constantly hearing of ‘tax cuts’ which undermines even further NHS funding? Why do private companies have to have the buildings, whether the NHS wish to sell them or not? Simple, it is another step towards the ultimate privatisation of the health service in the UK! 

The NHS will become at best a poor person’s safety net in decades to come. The Naylor recommendations were endorsed by then Prime Minister, Theresa May. Needless to say, the contents of the Naylor report were not common knowledge. When the NHS was formed back in 1948 it had a bed capacity of around 400,000 for a smaller population, the journalist John Pilger did an excellent review of the ‘governments war on the NHS’. Today it has less than a quarter of that number for a far larger population, all the slack is taken up by private health care for those who can afford. 

‘What now for the NHS’? Work it out, my guess despite all the fancy talk about the ‘NHS being safe in our hands’ - a term first coined by compulsive liar, Margaret Thatcher - all the evidence suggests the opposite!!
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Where Now For the NHS?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ✒ As we are all acutely aware over the last year and longer a terrible pandemic has infected mother earth.
 
COVID-19, or SARS – COV 2, reportedly began in China and spread its deadly wings outwards taking less than three months to cover the planet.

In the twenty-six counties the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom which, for now, covers the six-counties have constantly told us how well these services have done in coping with the crisis. 

The staff of both agencies have done remarkably well under very dangerous, life threatening conditions leading to public rounds of applause for the staff working in both services and no sane thinking person could deny this gesture of respect for these employees. However, no rounds of applause can compensate for a pay increase, which was/is deserved even before this pandemic, yet the impression I get [cynically I admit] is perhaps when/if this is all over and the health unions approach the employers for a substantial pay increase, they may be told – words to the effect of; you have had a round of applause, what more do you want, could this happen? Let’s hope I am wrong. 

In the twenty-six counties, some time prior to the pandemic there was a moratorium on nursing recruitment and budget shortages which affected (affects) the efficiency of the health service. Hospitals could not employ more nurses because they had not the budget to do so. In London, according to the journalist, John Pilger, a reliable source, the NHS carried out a dummy run back in 2016 of how they would shape up in the event of such a pandemic. The failings within the NHS were highlighted, shortage of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was apparent, bed shortages, staffing levels all came to the fore, yet nothing was done to rectify these deficiencies. 

At its formation back in 1948 the NHS had a bed capacity of 400,000 – thereabouts – today, for a larger population, that capacity is around the 130,000, possibly less! Various governments dating back to the sixties have implemented cut backs and will continue to do so in the UK once this present crisis is under control. Look at the amount of private health care companies now advertising their services on British television, Nuffield, Babylon, Spire Health Care, Layla Health Care to name only a few all claiming to be assisting the NHS. Perhaps the word assisting should be changed to “replacing” the NHS!

So, have the two health services coped? No, they have not! They have effectively managed one virus, COVID-19. If a person was/is a cancer patient, a renal patient, a liver patient somebody who suffers cardiac problems and many other serious illnesses they have been neglected. People have died of cancer for want of needing treatment and could not get it simply because everything has been thrown at COVID-19. This, by any definition is not coping - a patient suffering other illnesses have more chance of finding rocking horse shit on a beach than getting an appointment with their consultant! The truth is both services have not coped due to staffing levels, which in all probability will continue to be cut back on, a shortage of beds and equipment which, in the case of the NHS there are no excuses they knew their shortcomings and still did nothing to rectify them.

In the twenty-six counties Sinn Fein, if they ever get into government are pledged to the introduction of a fully funded, single tiered nationalised health system with treatment free at the point of need. It is to be modelled on the British variant introduced by the Labour Government of Clement Attlee in 1948 and was funded from general taxation. This was at a time when government policy was aimed at full employment so taxes were coming in and Keynesian economic policies which benefited the nationalised industries, including the NHS were government, Labour and Conservative, policy. Full employment is a major factor in funding such a service. 

Sinn Fein may have their own ideas as to how this service should be funded and they assure us it has all being fully costed. However, in the UK today much of the NHS funding comes from private enterprise, which raises the question; is it any longer a truly National Health Service? Yes, treatment is generally free at the point of need, a factor which is slowly being eroded, and visiting a GP is still free. The thing about this is, treatment is not free as such because people have already paid for it through taxation. Nevertheless, the NHS is still, though a shadow of its original self, a fine service at least for the time being! Sinn Fein must look at the NHS and study not the areas of brilliance and the government progressive policies of the Attlee administration, but the flaws therein which have evolved thereafter, partly due to the door being left ajar to allow such flaws to be exploited by private companies. 

If or when Sinn Fein become the leading party of government in the twenty-six counties, and assuming their policy of launching a single tiered nationalised health service is still in place [difficult to predict with them, what happened to the 32 county-socialist-republic?] they should look at the mistakes, if that is what they were, of the Atlee Government. 

The first error was not forcing GPs into becoming employees of the new NHS. GPs resisted the new health service with a vengeance, as I am sure they will here, and the then Health Minister, Aneurin Bevan, against his better judgement and personal beliefs came to a compromise with the GPs. General Practitioners were not to become employees of the NHS but rather independent contractors to the service, they would be paid so much per patient by the NHS in return for treatment for all free at the point of need. This potentially allowed privatisation to come in later on a larger scale as the GPs were already private concerns. It set a precedent. This was part of the settlement in 1948 when the NHS was established. Today, NHS England and Wales, Scotland and the six-counties differ slightly but still offer treatment free at the point of need, is responsible for paying practices for their services. GP practices are paid on the basis of the number of patients on their list, £152 per patient at the moment.

Consultants working for the NHS are also free to work in a private practice alongside their NHS work which obviously may and does lead to a conflict of interests. More money can be made through private consultations, despite the rules stating categorically there must be no conflict of interests between NHS and private work. This also happens in the twenty-six counties, as revealed on an RTE documentary some time ago, where consultants were doing private work at the expense of their HSE responsibilities.

If Sinn Fein ever find themselves in a position to establish a fully funded, single tiered nationalised health service they must take precautions against this sort of thing happening, otherwise the entire project could be undermined. One way would be to force by diktat GPs to surrender their private practices and come under the new health service umbrella. They would become state employees and no longer be able to charge non-medical card patients. In fact such items as medical cards would no longer be needed under a truly “free at the point of need” service. They would be paid a wage, a decent wage, and the job would come with a superannuated index linked pension in line with other public employees.

This may be a little dictatorial for the now non-revolutionary Sinn Fein so they may wish to take the softly approach, giving GPs the option of coming into the new system, while still being allowed a limited latitude to do private work providing their commitments to the public health service are fulfilled. However, such an approach is open to abuse, as the documentary on RTE showed. The next measure they could take is to train up a new generation of doctors who wish to become GPs making them all state employees, with a pension and a surgery provided by the state. Charging patients would be illegal and treatment “free at the point of need” would become the order of things. 

The private business GPs would have no patients, apart from the very wealthy, and eventually would die a death. After all who would go to a GP and pay money they could perhaps not afford, when they could attend a state employed equally good, and younger, GP and receive treatment free? The problem with the last option is, it takes years to train a Doctor so some form of legislation, perhaps in the “national interest” might have to come into force. Perhaps the banning of private health care could be considered, thus making the GPs come into the fold. Distasteful as these may be, a Sinn Fein Government or any other party committed to a single tiered public health service must consider.

Another area which must come under the umbrella is that of the pharmaceutical companies. In order to stop the conglomerates undermining the health service they must be taken out of private hands. At the moment these companies charge what the hell they like for medicines, often the prices are ridiculously high. That must stop, and the only way to do that is by putting these companies under government control. The high street Pharmacies must also be looked at, particularly the larger ones which have chains of shops, Boots for example is there a need to put them under government control? Or perhaps a policy of price and profit control could be the answer. The point I am trying to make is no section of health care must be allowed to undermine the service by personal greed. All dental and optical care must also come under the umbrella of the new service.

Before the outbreak of this pandemic the British Government commissioned the Naylor Report. This was an independent report by Sir Robert Naylor (March 2017) for the Secretary of State for Health. The object was/is “to raise funds so that new models of NHS care can be put into practice through forty-four Sustainability and Transformation Plans.” The report sites underinvestment, always the case when something is to be privatised, run the industry down making it inefficient and uneconomical. The report recommendation, which was endorsed by then British PM Theresa May, is to raise money through: “NHS property disposals, private capital investment in primary care and allocations from the treasury.”

In lay terms this means the Naylor Report will compel the NHS to sell land and property, old disused hospitals etc, in conjunction with private companies who will put up money to “maximise the value of the estate and share in any profit made.” The clue is in the latter, “share in any profit made”. Should the NHS Trusts “not commit to ‘maximise’ property disposals then they ‘would not be eligible to access public capital funding.” Research by the British Labour Party revealed much of this property still in clinical use is “on the list to be sold off.” 

This means NHS hospitals still fully functional will be sold off to private companies. The Naylor Report also wants private concerns to construct and maintain “primary care facilities and charge the NHS rent on those facilities!” This is a far cry from what was intended back in 1948 and is a backward step towards pre-World War Two universal private health care in the UK. What, for example under the Naylor Report, is to stop a private company buying up at a very low cost an obsolete hospital, renovating it and opening up again as a private hospital? Nothing says they cannot do this. Would it not be better, if governments are committed to the NHS, as they continually mislead people into believing they are, to put money into such hospitals and reopen them as NHS institutions instead of allowing private companies to move in and profit out of people’s ill health?

In the UK, and because the NHS has always been a mixture of public and private provision, there has always been a way in for the private sector to take over. In the days of the post-war consensus this was not an immediate problem because both major parties of government, Labour and Conservative, were committed to the NHS. This changed in 1979 with the election of the right-wing anti-consensus government of Margaret Thatcher. For the first time since its formation the NHS came under overall serious threat, and still is. To prevent this happening in the twenty-six counties Acts of the Oireachtatas, then by popular vote of the population added to the constitution should happen safeguarding the new nationalised single-tiered publicly funded health service from any future government changes. This way it would, in future be unconstitutional for any right-win Fine Gael or Fianna Fail Government to reverse the health service back into private hands.

For many years the HSE lagged behind the NHS in quality and delivery of care to patients, which does not mean the doctors and nurses in the NHS were/are better at their jobs than those in the HSE. It simply means the NHS due to the structures of a publicly funded service is better equipped to facilitate the staff to carry out their duties. This is still the case though the gap is narrowing but not because the HSE is improving, but moreover the NHS is deteriorating. Even while the pandemic has been ravaging the planet further cuts in the NHS are no doubt in the pipeline. The NHS has been run down by various British Governments since the sixties and accelerated after 1979 to suit the ever-changing needs of British capitalism, now part of the huge global capitalist picture. Perhaps when the unionists in the six-counties hold up the NHS as a shining example against Irish unification people should remember the NHS, if this trajectory is continued may not be around, certainly in its present form, for many more years.

Should Sinn Fein ever be in a position to implement their policy to replace the present health system with a publicly funded [through progressive taxation] health service they must be aware of the mistakes the Attlee Government, if mistakes be what they were, leaving the door ajar for future privatisation of their “jewel in the crown” the NHS. The Atlee Government in the UK had the Second World War as a background to implement their moderate socialist agenda, including the NHS. The politics of Britain [the North of Ireland was different] evolved into the “post war political consensus” meaning both parties, Labour and Conservative, were committed to the moderate nationalisation programme and the NHS. 

The only political consensus in the twenty-six counties is that of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail conspiring together to keep Sinn Fein out of government and if this successfully continues the Irish National Health Service that party envisages will never come to pass. Perhaps looking back at the flaws in the British model, and with the gift of hindsight, Sinn Fein should look at the Cuban model of health care, or perhaps a mixture of both. The Cuban way would require much restructuring of the economy and the means of production from private to state ownership, which might mean Sinn Fein bringing about the thirty-two-county socialist republic they once promised! 

In order to fund a public health service, the economy would have to undergo some changes. No longer could the so-called free market be allowed to dictate the direction the economy takes, much more government intervention would be required to facilitate the health service and, therefore, people’s quality of health. Either way if health care provision is going to improve in the twenty-six counties some sort of nationalised, single tiered health service is required. Will Sinn Fein bring this about or, like the 32 county socialist republic, will the idea like chaff in the wind, just disappear?


Caoimhin O’Muraile is a Dublin 
based Marxist and author. 

The HSE + NHS Have Coped? SF Plans For A Nationalised Health Service For 26 Counties!

Ian Major with some thoughts from his Covid bed.

Citizens of the UK have enjoyed the benefits of the Welfare State for generations. As I lay in bed and reflected on the care I was receiving from the hospital staff, the drugs being supplied, the excellent meals, I was so grateful that I did not have to pay for that directly. 

My taxes and National Insurance contributions over my working life were my part in making a free National Health Service possible. My fellow-citizens paid their part too. Some of us more than others, as our incomes differed, yet all get the same access.

Some people, good brethren among them, look on State Welfare as if it is Socialism. They go to the root of public welfare, the authority and mandate of the State, and insist that the State goes beyond its mandate when it intervenes to supply the needs of its citizens. The only legitimate role they see for the State is to defend the nation from foreign aggression and from criminality at home. Exactly where they draw the line on State intervention may differ – I reckon many will be happy for the State to employ fire-fighters as well as policemen. But here I will make the case for welfare as opposed to their minimalist understanding of the State's role in governance of the nation.

The mandate given to the State by God is clearly stated in several Scripture passages. The most famous is that given in Paul's letter to the Romans:
 
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
 
Peter also addresses the issue of the Christian and the State:
 
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
 
Do these texts limit the State to restraining criminality internally and military defence toward external foes? Not at all.

They tell us that the State is ordained to not only defend us from criminals and foreign foes, but to be for our good; to not only punish the wicked but to praise those who do good.

In addition to that, the role of the State is revealed in the rest of Scripture to be pastoral; the king is appointed to care for his people as a shepherd cares for his sheep.
 
2 Samuel 5:2 Also, in time past, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in; and the LORD said to you, ‘You shall shepherd My people Israel, and be ruler over Israel.’ ”

Isaiah 44:28 Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd,
And he shall perform all My pleasure,
Saying to Jerusalem, “You shall be built,”
And to the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.” ’

Jeremiah 25:35 And the shepherds will have no way to flee,
Nor the leaders of the flock to escape.

Ezekiel 34:10 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”

Nahum 3:18 Your shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria;
Your nobles rest in the dust.
Your people are scattered on the mountains,
And no one gathers them.

Matthew 2:6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”
 
The shepherd not only defends the sheep from predators, he leads them to good pasture, and treats their sickness and injuries. The welfare of the flock is his mandate.

Same for those whom God has appointed rulers over a nation. God will require an accounting for that office. Lazy or abusive rulers will answer for it in the day of Judgment.

So it is not right that the State sits on its hands and expects each citizen to look after his/her own welfare, no matter their resources and circumstances. It is perfectly within the State’s duties to tax everyone to ensure sufficient resources will be available for those in need. Medical care, basic food and shelter. No one should have to live on the streets or go hungry, or suffer without medical care.

Not that the State has to be directly involved in operating a NHS – it would be sufficient for them to require everyone to enter a private medical insurance scheme of the person's choice. As long as the State makes sure it works for all.

Nor is the State obliged to aid those who are able to work but refuse to. The Scripture gives the rule : Those who will not work, should not eat:
 
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.
 
I thank God for the NHS the governments of the UK set up and continue to fund. Yes, it could be organized and funded a lot better, but it is a blessing even in its neglected state.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist.  

Welfare Is Not Socialism

Davy Clinton writes of his Boxing Day experience in a Belfast hospital where abusive drunks made life difficult for battling NHS staff,

I had occasion today to spend most of Boxing Day in the Emergency Department of the RVH in Belfast. If I had admiration for NHS staff before landing there it has increased ten fold tonight. Apart from the excellent medical treatment given by all the staff from porters through to consultants I saw them display patience over and beyond what should be expected of any worker. 

At 11am there were men and women in the waiting area, drunk and drugged, causing a disturbance that a pub doorman wouldn't put up with. If they wore masks at all - and some of them didn't - they wore them around their chins. One half wit who was in his 40s and should have known better marched in and up ahead of others in a queue waiting to give details to the receptionist. Did he see the queue? Did he care? I'm not sure if he even knew where he was. Marymo put him right though ... in a more polite way than I may have, and told him the queue was for everyone. In fairness to him and probably in response to the bake on her he turned and joined the queue. Drunk or drugged I do not know but he certainly didn't know if it were Christmas or Easter. 

There were several others like him though all they did was make a lot of noise and hop from chair to chair. If I have any complaints today it's not against medical or administrative staff but that management has no security there.

Even after triage and move to another part of the hospital there were enough balloons there for an 18th birthday party and all intent on creating as much mayhem as they could for staff and other patients. I saw one man in his late 70s terrified of one screaming girl demanding her "juice" that she brought in. The most pleasant young nurse - they are all young to me - calmingly repeated over and over that the doctor had given instructions that she was to be given no liquids. Jeesis, you'd have thought the nurse was cutting off her oxygen the way she got on about her "juice". Obviously, more in her "juice" than "juice".

And so it went on for hours  - one nurse telling me it would only get worse as the day went on. Are these people for real - do they have no morals, no decency? This has nothing to do with Covid.. These are the same type of people who were doing this last year and who will be doing it when Covid is but a distant memory.

I would be demented if my wife or daughter had to work in that environment. I was older than all the staff I saw and met today. Although they were all wonderful I did not see one of their faces but each and everyone of them made me feel as if I was the only one in that department. Wonderful people. Unlike the other scumbags in that department today.

⏩Davy Clinton is a life long Glasgow Celtic supporter. 

Juice Merchants ➖ What NHS Staff Put Up With

Mick Hall is reluctant to endorse the weekly applause for the NHS.

I feel a little uneasy about this weekly clapping. 

It's not that the majority of people clapping aren't genuine, I'm sure they are. But rather than it being a spontaneous outburst of thanks to NHS, care workers and others in the front line, it's turned into an orchestrated campaign with political ring masters at the centre. 


That the ringmasters are the very people who over the last ten years cut the NHS to the bone, and today have left NHS and care workers short of PPE are not the type of company I wish to keep. Watching them on TV in Downing Street, Whitehall and outside their homes, clapping the NHS turns my stomach. I cannot help feeling these wretches are attempting to rewrite history, to wipe their slate clean.

Is the slogan 'Clap for the NHS' much different from 'Get Brexit Done'? 

Were they both manufactured in the same reactionary sinkhole?

I don't wish to rerun Brexit - for me it's done. But with the fickle and servile nature of the British MSM and the nudge-nudge effect it has on public opinion I do worry that today's hero's may become tomorrow's victims.

Does any rational non-Tory truly believe the Conservative government's wish to privatise the NHS by stealth is no longer on their long term agenda?

⏩ Mick Hall is a veteran Left Wing activist and trade unionist.

Clapping

Prior to the onset of Covid-19, writing in the Guardian a junior doctor working at Worcestershire Royal hospital lashed Boris Johnson over the loss of life as result of the runnning down of the NHS.  
  By Andrew Meyerson

The prime minister’s neglect of the NHS has resulted in too many tragedies. If he were a doctor, he would be struck off. 

Dear Boris Johnson,

In medicine – unlike politics, where anything seems to go these days – we have situations called “never events”. These are instances that occur when a patient is seriously harmed in spite of all the protocols and protective measures to prevent this happening. “Never events” are such serious, manmade disasters that most clinicians involved in them will bear the burden of such tragic events for the rest of their careers. You are not fit to lecture us any more about what we need in our NHS hospitals

Like many junior doctors who have worked in overwhelmed and understaffed A&E departments, I’ve seen things happen as a result of the overstretched conditions that I believe should be classed as “never events”.

Since 2016, nearly 5,500 patients have died in England alone as a direct result of having waited too long to be admitted to hospital. To put that in perspective, that’s nearly twice the number of people killed in terror attacks in the UK since 1970. We should be outraged.

Continue reading @ the Guardian.

Johnson Has Contributed To Thousands Of Deaths

Mike Craig on why the NHS should not have to rely on charity.

You have to admire the monumental efforts of this old soldier, and the generosity of the thousands of people who sponsored him, but the NHS is neither about giving or receiving charity.


Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community - Aneurin Bevan

The billionaires and millionaires are watching Mr. Moore and his supporters and laughing all the way to the off-shore banks with the money they've been creaming off our public services. This theft has left the NHS in such a state that people like Mr. Moore feel that they have to give donations in order to save it in this time of crisis.

The well intentioned people who put their efforts into raising funds for public services are inadvertently undermining them. The NHS is a public service, not a charitable one, and it is paid for through taxation and national insurance contributions. We have already paid for it!

By donating to the NHS we let the government off the hook. We are sending a message to the government and their friends the speculators that it's alright to continue to steal our taxes through PFIs and outsourcing. We're telling them to carry on regardless because when the funds have been siphoned off, we'll happily pay again to make up the shortfall.

Thanks Mr. Moore and thanks to all those who supported your initiative, but really folks, you'd do the NHS a lot more good by directing your efforts into a campaign to stop its deliberate destruction by a bunch of parasites.

It [the NHS] will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan

⏩Mike Craig is a member of Left Horizons.

Army Veteran Aged 99 Raises £20 Million For NHS By Walking 200 Laps Of His Garden

Kevin Morley discusses the recent Irish general election in the context of a national health service. 

I can remember exactly where I was back in 1986 when Sinn Fein (Provisional) had taken their momentous decision to break their own rule book entering the twenty-six-county parliament, Dail Eireann. This caused a split in the organisation, not for the first time over the issue of entering Dail politics. Out of this, just as the provisional wing of Sinn Fein came into being, so did Republican Sinn Fein come about. I was sat on the London tube, Northern Line travelling to work at a Builders yard, Waterloo, wearing my work clothes, denims, steel toed boots and a Donkey Jacket still sporting the COAL NOT DOLE stickers from the previous year’s Coal Miner’s Strike. I glanced up and read the headlines of a broadsheet which read; “Uproar As Provos Enter Dail” which was referring to the above mentioned decision by the former revolutionary party to enter the Dail. 

The man reading the newspaper was, in sharp contrast to my dress, wearing his work clothes consisting of a three-piece suit and suede shoes! I recall thinking, fucking wanker! These enterist policies into the world of the bourgeoisie and their parliaments – all parliaments of liberal democracies are institutions geared solely to governing the affairs of the indigenous capitalist class. 

From Congress in the USA to the Bundestag in Germany, then West Germany, including Westminster, this is the role of what I call “Pandoras Boxes”. They are not there to govern the interests of the working-class, we are just led to believe this crap for five minutes every five years or so – I thought, what about the much heralded 32 county socialist republic? This was Sinn Fein policy and for many years afterwards remained, at least in public, to be so. Their paper, An Phobolacht, at least the one sold in Ireland and Britain often referred to the party’s aims of a 32 county democratic socialist republic. The one sold in the USA, I understand, made less reference to socialism, after all can’t be upsetting the capital of bourgeois ideology. The capital in the modern world yes, but not the originators.

As we know in Ireland, 26 counties, we have recently had an election and Sinn Fein are not the only party to drop their revolutionary clothes. People Before Profit, PBP originates from the Socialist Workers Party who trumpeted as their motto: “No Parliamentary Road to Socialism” which is as true today as ever. Their partners, Solidarity, come from the old Socialist Party and espoused a similar revolutionary road towards socialism. The SWP, I remember, ran down O’Connell Street many years back to the astonishment of shoppers shouting in their massed ranks; “one solution, revolution!” Both Sinn Fein and PBP/Solidarity are voteable and preach progressive policies. They are the best of a bad bunch in many respects.

Now we see these former revolutionaries trying to cobble together a “left-wing government” and I wish them well in this venture. The alternative is years of the same tried, tested and failed Fianna Fail and Fine Gael policies. The policies of homelessness, a health service not worthy of the name – no fault of the nurses and doctors employed – and more of these policies will kill, literally, many people. In the case of Fianna Fail they were unlucky enough, in one respect, to have been in office when the international capitalist economies collapsed. They presided over the effects of this in Ireland and could have done a lot more to cushion the blow on working-class people, but they didn’t. They instead, and true to form, looked after their friends in big business.

Sinn Fein and PBP/Solidarity both champion the establishment of a nationalised health service, and rightly so, single tiered with treatment free at the point of need. Modelled closely on the UKs NHS and funded from general taxation, primarily Income Tax, these policies are certainly progressive though not revolutionary. Below I shall briefly examine the UK NHS from its hey-day to present decline.

When the Second World War ended in 1945, the United Kingdom, including the six counties, was in a state of needing repair. In the election of that year the British electorate – not including the six counties, though they benefited for once – voted in by a landslide a labour government. Out went the wartime leader, Winston Churchill – who presided over the war time coalition – who, despite what many said about him being a great wartime leader, which may or may not have been the case, he was too closely remembered for the hard times of the pre-war years, the thirties. Britain (and empire) had been on the winning side, along with the USSR, USA, Canada to name three in the war against fascism and people demanded better. The thirties had been austere years for the working-class in the UK, even in Belfast during the outdoor relief schemes of the early thirties the boss’s biggest fears were evolving before their very eyes. Protestant and Catholic workers were united in their poverty and for a period it looked like the old sectarian divisions were in the process of being broken down. This was more than the employers could face and, as usual, they played the sectarian Orange Card thus resurrecting the age-old divisions between Catholic and Protestant, which Britain used for years as justification for their occupation. The 1945 election saw Churchill kicked out of office and the election of a parliamentary constitutional socialist government headed by Clement Attlee. This was the first ever majority labour administration and Attlee won by a landslide. His manifesto was radical, as were some of his ministers like Aneurin Bevan, a firebrand socialist who believed passionately in health which was the Ministry he was given. Attlee also nationalised some of the major industries, Coal, Rail, Transport to name but three. The programme was not revolutionary but by the standards of the day was radical. The labour government elect also included a broad-based Welfare State which included a National Health Service (NHS). Among the slogans of the welfare state was the maxim; “never again” meaning, “never again will people be means tested” before aid will be given. To cover the whole welfare state would be too broad for this piece so we shall look at the NHS. Aneurin Bevan, Atlee’s Minister for Health had a huge battle with the health professions, doctors in particular and even today most doctors practices, though incorporated into the NHS are in fact private business’s. Hospital Consultants were also a problem who had to be overcome but, and against massive odds, Bevan overcame them.

On July 5th 1948 Bevan unveiled the NHS where treatment would be given “free at the point of need” irrespective of a person’s ability to pay. Gone were the days when before treatment would be given a person’s bank balance had to be checked first. Another part of the post-war labour government’s policies, were the adoption of a mixed economy based on the principles advocated by the economist, John Maynard Keynes known as “Keynesianism.” These policies were geared towards full employment, an essential ingredient for labours vision. The new NHS was to be funded by general taxation, particularly Income Tax, and for this to even stand a chance full employment with everybody paying their share of Income Tax was essential. The UK as a whole needed rebuilding after the war many hands were needed for the task. For this reason, the bourgeoisie never objected to these plans, it would save them paying for the job, and, in many cases, they would profit out of the work which needed doing. Only about five percent of industry was nationalised leaving plenty of spare room for private companies to make money. Of course, a strong, large healthy workforce was needed which provided much impetus for the NHS and full employment. The welfare state provided unemployment benefit, the dole, which nobody claimed because everybody was in employment. Only those between jobs, sometimes called frictional unemployment which was not even registered, were for a short period, usually a week or so, out of work. Nobody claimed the “dole” even though it was considerably more relative to wages, than an unemployed person gets today. This drives a stagecoach through the theory of people not being willing to work, preferring to live off “hanouts”, for a living, often pedalled by the bourgeois media in modern days. The middle-classes, bourgeoisie, knew one day they would get their nationalised industries back, at a cut rate, once the post-war project was complete. How right they were! The political theatre after the war became known as the “Post War Consensus” in Britain – again the six counties were different, one party unionist rule prevailed there – and by consensus it was meant; one party would not do too much to undo what the other party had done while in government. So, in 1951 when Churchill was returned his administration did little if anything to reverse the nationalisation of Attlee and the previous labour government. Similarly, the conservative administration went along with, and even developed, the NHS. They too realised the boss’s needed a strong, large, reliable and healthy workforce to keep industry working and profits coming. If people were off sick, and could not afford healthcare they would be away from work much longer, thus costing the economy money. If they could receive healthcare free at the point of need, the quicker they’d be back at work. This consensus thrived and kept Britain going throughout the fifties and into the sixties. In 1960 Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan once boasted to the British people; “you’ve never had it so good” and this included the jewel in the crown, the NHS.

During the sixties the first cracks appeared in the consensus, as capitalism recovered after the war, it was seen that the NHS costs were rising and therefore, in order to suit the needs of capitalism cuts were introduced by the labour government of Harold Wilson. It was Wilson’s administration who first introduced the closure of coalmines and it was in 1963 that Dr Richard Beeching closed many railway Branch lines which were uneconomical. These cuts became known as; the “Beeching Axe”, officially called “The reshaping of Britain’s Railways” and coupled with the cuts in coal production saw the first reduction in nationalised goods and services. The NHS did not escape these cuts, many rural “cottage hospitals” were closed. In the cities some smaller hospitals were closed in favour of larger, what would later become, “centres of excellence” and specialised hospitals. All the same and despite the cuts the NHS was still the jewel in the crown of the consensus, and the best in Europe. it was also the largest employer in Europe, and still, despite the cuts and privatisation of certain areas one of the largest employers in Europe.

In 1979 the election of Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister signalled the end of the Post War Consensus. She hated the consensus with a vengeance and was determined the nationalised industries would be privatised, and the trade unions, strong in these industries, destroyed as a meaningful force. This was her policy, union bashing culmination with the year-long miner’s strike in 1984/85. She also dispensed with Keynesian economic practices replacing these with those espoused by Milton Freidman and the “Chicago School” of economics, monetarism. There was less emphasis on full employment and much more was aimed at reducing inflation, without telling anybody what the real causes of inflation were/are. If she could blame the unions for inflation, and enough gullible people believed her, then that was good enough. Unfortunately, through her control – unofficial – of the media it worked. Once she had tackled, or reduced the power of the trade unions, the NHS would have to be trimmed, but she was acutely aware this could not be done in one sweep. The people would not stand for her butchering the health service as she had done with other industries. This had to be done bit by bit, and while the cuts were being initiated she continuously told the public, “the NHS is safe in our hands”. By 1990 Thatcher had gone, but Thatcherism lived on and, arguably, still does! With unemployment, purposely rising – this was all a factor in defeating the unions, if people were out of work, the less likely those in employment were to go on strike – meaning again, less income tax revenue. That meant the NHS had to look increasingly more to private investment for funding. Now, private investors do not invest unless a profit can be made. The NHS was/is not supposed to be a profit-making organisation but the private sector would not invest their money unless a profit could be secured. Work it out for yourselves, I won’t insult the readers intelligence with all the details, but the NHS had to, for these people, return them a profit for their investments. Privatisation of certain areas of the NHS was on the cards!

Through the nineties, morale in the NHS among staff was ebbing fast. It was still among the finest health services in Europe but was beginning to look a shadow of its former self. Capitalism no longer needed the large healthy workforce it once did, new technology brought in by private employers deemed workers, human ones, unnecessary. Everybody began to believe the myth unemployment was inevitable, due to “automation and new technology” which of course is bollocks. It is not, was not, the automation of industry which causes unemployment, it is who owns this technology? The new means of production, distribution and exchange, just as their Fordist forerunners and before, right back to the Industrial Revolution, were/are not in themselves responsible for unemployment. Private ownership of the means of production now, as in history, is the cause of unemployment. Therefore, this private ownership is indirectly or otherwise, of the means of production, causing unemployment, is a major factor in the demise of the NHS. In the six counties one major reason against Irish unity the unionists could, with some justification, point to was the disparity in the health systems, north and south. The NHS was leaps and bounds above the HSE in the 26 counties. Not because the Doctors and Nurses were any better in the NHS than the HSE (or its previous name) but because of the structural set up delivering treatment and care free at the point of need practised by the NHS in the six counties. Contrast this with the system in the south, VHI and Medical Cards, and we can see why the NHS comes out well on top. That gap, however, had narrowed in recent decades, not because the HSE has caught up, but because the NHS has digressed. The UK National Health Service, once the jewel in the post war consensus crown, initiated by the government of Clement Attlee, based on the wartime report of William Beverage, is now in the lower part of the European health table. The twenty- six counties are lower but the gap between the two is much narrower!

Last year a report on the state of the finances in the NHS was commissioned. This was compiled by Sir Robert Naylor and has become known as the “Naylor Report” or, “Naylor Review”. It advocates the selling off of NHS “surplus land” and hospitals, disused buildings owned by the NHS, and the money raised used to invest in what is left. Building new hospitals is one way of investing, so we are told, but where? If all the “surplus” land has been sold to private speculators to build houses, private dwellings on, even if the money raised was sufficient, where are any new hospitals going to be built? Hospitals which do not sell land have been told they will be punished. They may be strangled of repair and building monies! To accelerate these sales hospitals will get a “2 – for – 1” offer roughly translated this means, to my understanding, the government steps in and doubles the cash received for the sale. The money to be paid straight to the hospitals, not private developers – supposedly to finance building projects. Again, the question must be asked, if hospitals have sold their land and receive this money, where exactly are they going to build? On new land costing more than the old land, even with the government double money, was sold for. More than what was received for the old land? What would be wrong with the government giving this money without the hospitals selling the land, they, the government, obviously have it, to build or develop for health on the land they already have? This could also lead, in order to get this cash, to the NHS selling land which isn’t really “surplus”! The Naylor Report recommends selling NHS land and buildings worth around £2 billion rising to £5 billion to build homes on. In order to secure this money, cash which should have been there from taxation, is tantamount to a drive to further privatise the NHS. Leading Doctors have criticised the “Naylor Review” claiming it is a drive towards the “complete privatisation” of the NHS.

Various conservative administrations have been dismantling the NHS for many years now while telling people, “the NHS is safe in our hands”. It is akin to telling people the weather outside is warm and sunny when, in reality, there is a foot of snow and freezing. Unfortunately, and despite evidence to the contrary, many people believe what they are told irrespective of what they can see.

Down here in the 26 counties we hear Sinn Fein committed to a national single tiered health service. This is progressive without a doubt, but if they are going to fund it from general taxation they must also be committed to full employment. If this is the case, as surely it must be, then how are they going to force employers to take on staff they do not need? They cannot instruct employers what to do, it would be in breach of neo laissez faire (none governmental interference in the economy) economics. Therefore, it must be assumed in order to secure full employment, to fund, through Income Tax, a national health service free at the point of need, Sinn Fein, or People Before Profit/Solidarity or a combination of both must be committed to full employment, and this can only be done through the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It must therefore follow, that to achieve this the private companies, large ones, must be at least nationalised. However, despite the radicalness of their policies in the build up to the recent Irish election, I heard nothing about breaking with laissez faire economics and governmental involvement in the economy. But it is Sinn Fein policy to build a national health service, single tier based on the British model. That means funding through general taxation which must also mean, everybody paying Income Tax! We can go around the mulberry bush for ever here, but these are essential ingredients, which was why Clement Attlee embraced Keynesianism as the 1945 labour administrations economic policy.

To summarise, 1945 the end of the war. Unlike their predecessors in 1918, the troops coming back from fighting fascism wanted a better society than the one they left behind. They wanted no more means testing, no mor being afraid to visit a Doctor or hospital because they could not afford the fees. For this, among others, the electorate in Britain elected a radical labour government who promised, and delivered, a welfare state including the NHS. Capitalism allowed these radical reforms as it benefited the capitalist class as well as the proletariat. The United States were not entirely happy with the British electorate for rejecting Churchill and, using some bullshit excuse about Britain abusing Marshal Aid, stopped this lifeline to Britain. So much for the special relationship! The “Post War Consensus” briefly explained above, became the status quo between 1945 and, ultimately 1979 which allowed for incoming governments not to dismantle their predecessors achievements. The consensus. Margaret Thatcher dismantled the consensus and arguably introduced a new right-wing variant epitomised by the Tony Blair (New) Labour Government which did little to attack Thatcherism. By this time capitalism, the priority of any government in a liberal democracy, no longer needed the sizable workforce which they did when the NHS first came into being. With unemployment rising, due to various government policies – chiefly conservative administrations – Income Tax revenue was falling leading to less funding which taxation was supposed to pay for. Enter private sector. If taxation was no longer sufficient to fund the NHS, and still they kept giving tax cuts to benefit the rich, then funding would be sought elsewhere. This is clear evidence that governments, despite what they say, are in the business of privatising the NHS. If they were not, even allowing for unemployment, they would stop giving tax breaks to the rich! On to 2019 and the “Naylor Report” and the selling off of NHS land and buildings, including old hospitals which could be refurbished, or, demolished and a new one built on the site!

This in brief is the rise and what looks like the fall of the UK National Health Service. Things not set to improve any time soon, the electorate don’t seem that bothered yet. If they were, they would have voted in a labour government, as they did in 1945! Unfortunately for the people in the six counties who did not vote for Johnson and his version of conservatism they will have to put up with him as their Prime minister. Never mind the Legislative Assembly, they are not, no matter how it is dressed up, the government any more than Greater Manchester Council are!!

Any government or potential government in the twenty-six counties must be prepared to interfere or intervene in the economy if they want to establish a nationalised, single tier health service. Failure to do this will not result in such a service coming into being. Clement Attlee had the Second World War to build his NHS on the back of, the people needed radical change and he broke with all previous protocol and delivered. He intervened, as Keynesian economics allowed, in the economy and delivered his “jewel in the crown”, the NHS. This service applied to all parts of the UK including the six-counties. Today, the ideas of Keynes are points of history as monetarism, which does not allow the scope for the same government intervention in the economy, is the policy of the day. So the question must be asked: how far would the capitalist state allow such intervention? For socialists, it would not matter, the state would have to be engaged to get all measures through and a socialist state established, but would the capitalist economy allow for some moderate intervention in order to deliver a nationalised health service delivering care free at the point of need? Or, would the capitalist class link arms, possibly using the army if matters were to go too far threatening their state based on profits for the boss’s? Chile was an example of a constitutional government, socialist, under Salvador Allende being overthrown when the capitalist class felt he, Allende, had gone too far. It resulted in a fascist takeover and cost Allende his life. The capitalist world looked on and did nothing why? Probably because they felt under such circumstances, they would have done the same, their armed forces and their police would take out the government! If anybody has seen the film; A Very British Coup about a left-wing British Prime Minister brought down by the state they’d see what I mean. The film epitomises the power of the state over governments. Would this happen here in Ireland if any government, constitutional government, broke with aspects of laissez faire? These are all arguments for the old maxim; “no parliamentary road to socialism”, which brings us to the meaning of left-wing and right-wing. Left-wing tends to be those committed to social change and sit on the left wing of parliament. It originates from the French Revolution and is a bourgeois political concept. Right-wing tends to be the forces of conservatism who sit on the right wing of parliament. Therefore, in the British parliament the labour MPs sit on the left wing or left side of parliament, the conservatives sit opposite. In the former USSR the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) would be considered right-wing, wishing to conserve the status quo, whereas Boris Yeltsin, who wished to dismantle communism – Soviet version – was considered left-wing. During the fall of the USSR western media often mentioned “conservative communists” a contradiction in terms to most people listening or reading. They simply meant the people who were in power at the time, the CPSU who wished to conserve the status quo.

Whether you agree with the revolutionary road to socialism, or still believe a parliamentary avenue remains open one thing all must agree on is; we need a new health service, free for all at the point of need! Just as Clement Attlee’s labour administration back in the forties brought about the NHS and nationalised certain industries which, as it turned out were only on loan, as progressive these moves were, they did not equal socialism. Socialism cannot coexist with capitalism and of all the isms the one which capitalism fears is socialism. Capitalism can coexist, even thrive, under fascism and as history tells us, under certain conditions the capitalist class will resort to it as their saviour. Nationalisation of industry, a move in the correct direction certainly, must not be confused or mistaken with “workers control of the means of production” it is not the same. The latter cannot be brought about without the removal of capitalism. If a Sinn Fein and possibly PBP/Solidarity coalition ever do bring about an Irish variant of the NHS, funded by general taxation, and if the capitalist state allow it, that same capitalist state can take it away. Just look at the UK! It will not be a substitute for the Socialist Republic which Sinn Fein once claimed to subscribe to, remember? That fight must continue!!


Kevin Morley, writer, activist,  author of A Descriptive History of the  Irish Citizen Army & Striking Similarities & The Misogynous President.

Socialism: Revolution or Reform? A National Health Service

Mick Hall @ Organized Rage discusses the decline in the National Health Service as experienced in Thurrock.

Don't Get Sick In Thurrock

Mick Hall @ Organized Rage feels that:

Far from having a second rate NHS as UKIP's leader claimed, we still have one of the finest in the world.

One Of The World's Finest

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)