NHS news review

Spread the love

The Future Forum is due to report on the “listening exercise” on NHS ‘reforms’ today. It is expected to recommend many far-reaching changes to the proposed Abolition of the NHS bill. For example, it is likely to recommend that the Secretary of State for Health remains responsible for providing a health service and changes to the role of Monitor.

The Liberal Democrats are claiming that they have achieved victory in protecting the NHS. Unions Unite and Unison are far more reasonably cautious in their assessment and repeat their call that the bill should be abandoned in its entirety. It is a mistake to assume that the battle has been won.

It is absolutely ridiculous that Clegg and the Liberal-Democrats should claim that they have protected the NHS when Clegg & Co were fully supportive of the bill initially. While the Liberal-Democrat Spring Conference played a role, that is far removed from Clegg & Co. Many groups and individuals – and most notably many professional medical groups of GPs, nurses and surgeons – are united in their opposition to the destruction of the NHS. Clegg & Co were forced to respond to the pressure of opposition.

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles concerning the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

NHS Bill “not fit for purpose” / Britain / Home – Morning Star

Unions demanded today that the government’s Health Bill be scrapped on the eve of new recommendations from the hastily assembled body overseeing the coalition’s official “listening exercise.”

The NHS Future Forum, made up of handpicked staff, community and patient representatives, will set out today why and how it believes the government should amend its stalled Health and Social Care Bill.

The forum, established by Mr Cameron, has been tasked with gathering the views of doctors, nurses and patients.

Mr Cameron claimed that the government had listened to concerns about the Bill raised during the initiative, which saw more than 200 events held across the country.

But Unite the union national officer for health Rachael Maskell dismissed the ploy, calling for the Bill to go altogether.

She said: “It is time to scrap the Bill and conduct a proper review of what is needed for the long-term needs of the NHS and our nation’s health, rather than rush through a biased, lop-sided listening exercise.”

A Unison spokeswoman also reiterated the union’s view that the Bill should be scrapped, adding that “fiddling around on the edges is not going to make this Bill any more sensible for patients and is no more than a smokescreen for £20 billion of cuts being driven through the NHS.”

Letters: Marketisation and the healthcare bill | Society | The Guardian

It is not voters who “will not tolerate any further delays” (David Cameron and Nick Clegg to ‘show unity’ over NHS reforms report, 7 June) but the coalition government – which is trying to push through its proposals to turn the NHS into a market before the summer recess. Many campaigners feel the bill should be scrapped and that the stated aims could be achieved more cheaply without legislation. This position was also endorsed at the Lib Dem conference in March in a resolution: “Conference recognises however that all of the above policies and aspirations can be achieved without adopting the damaging and unjustified market-based approach that is proposed.”

Unless part 3 of the bill which relates to Monitor is withdrawn, marketisation will continue; if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can manage without such a body, why do we need one in England? I note that the budget for GPs, which was originally said to be £80bn until March when Mr Lansley told the health select committee that it would be £60bn, has now increased to £65bn.

The government needs to stop implementing the bill before it has finished its passage through parliament, have a hard look at the figures emanating from the Department of Health, and stop trying to win this battle via spinning stories to the media. Ideally it should withdraw the bill.

Wendy Savage

Co-chair, Keep Our NHS Public

John Healey: NHS needs evolution, not Tory revolution – Commentators, Opinion – The Independent

David Cameron’s first year as Prime Minister has been a year of chaos, confusion and waste for the NHS. He promised at the election to “protect the NHS” and “stop the top-down reorganisations that have got in the way of patient care”.

Since then, we’ve had weak leadership, poor communication, bad policy and rushed legislation as part of the biggest top-down reorganisation in NHS history. Even Professor Steve Field, whose advice as chair of the Prime Minister’s Future Forum will be published tomorrow, has said the Government’s NHS changes are “unworkable” and could “destroy key services”.

All efforts now should be dedicated to reforms that the NHS needs to rise to the three biggest challenges – improving the quality, safety and consistency of care for patients; integrating services better, especially for elderly people and those living with long-term health problems; and increasing efficiency, as public finances are squeezed. But as doctors, nurses, patients groups, NHS experts and even the Tory-led Health Select Committee have all cautioned, the NHS reorganisation makes meeting these challenges harder, not easier.

The Government’s declared aims – a stronger role for clinicians in commissioning care, greater involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and more stress on improving results for patients – could all be achieved by the evolution of gains that Labour made, without legislation.

But the legislation is needed to pursue the revolution of turning the NHS into a full-scale market, modelled on the privatised utilities and driven by the force of competition law. This Tory revolution removes proper public accountability, and breaks up the NHS so patients will see greater inequality in services.

Opening the door to NHS privatisation / Features / Home – Morning Star

David Cameron is a shrewd tactician.

His five promises on the NHS, made in early June, are a classic drawing-out manoeuvre.

By provoking responses from friends and enemies, he is able to gauge the level of support for the NHS reforms and the strength of the opposition.

The Tories are in disarray over the health service – polls suggest that the majority of the population believe they have a hidden privatisation agenda.

The Liberal Democrats play to this, if only because they are desperate to regain some public support.

The durability of the coalition government depends on the continued engagement of the Lib Dems, so their pressure against Andrew Lansley’s Bill matters.

Shire Tories are taking a “if it’s not bust, don’t fix it” attitude towards the NHS.

The Conservative Party’s middle ground believes that a dose of competition would do the NHS a power of good, but do not want wholesale privatisation.

Only the metropolitan chattering classes are interested in root and branch commercialisation.

Just a few weeks ago there was a real prospect that the whole of Lansley’s Bill would be discarded.

Cameron will try to avoid that – he dare not risk a U-turn because his party’s right would not forgive him for appeasing the Lib Dems and backing away from a confrontation with the public sector.

The response of the NHS professional bodies to Cameron’s promises will matter a lot.

What the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges and the senior managers’ body the NHS Confederation now say will influence what their members do.

Without commitment to change in the people who do the work, the reforms will stall. After some guardedly positive comments like “a significant step in the right direction,” the professions are awaiting the details of the revised reform Bill.

NHS Bill “not fit for purpose” / Britain / Home – Morning Star

Unions demanded today that the government’s Health Bill be scrapped on the eve of new recommendations from the hastily assembled body overseeing the coalition’s official “listening exercise.”

The NHS Future Forum, made up of handpicked staff, community and patient representatives, will set out today why and how it believes the government should amend its stalled Health and Social Care Bill.

The forum, established by Mr Cameron, has been tasked with gathering the views of doctors, nurses and patients.

Mr Cameron claimed that the government had listened to concerns about the Bill raised during the initiative, which saw more than 200 events held across the country.

But Unite the union national officer for health Rachael Maskell dismissed the ploy, calling for the Bill to go altogether.

She said: “It is time to scrap the Bill and conduct a proper review of what is needed for the long-term needs of the NHS and our nation’s health, rather than rush through a biased, lop-sided listening exercise.”

A Unison spokeswoman also reiterated the union’s view that the Bill should be scrapped, adding that “fiddling around on the edges is not going to make this Bill any more sensible for patients and is no more than a smokescreen for £20 billion of cuts being driven through the NHS.”

Shirley Williams: Lib Dems should take credit for thwarting Lansley – Commentators, Opinion – The Independent

NHS Forum ‘listening’ report unlikely to assuage health service fears | Ekklesia

The NHS Future Forum is due to submit its report on proposed health reforms today (Monday 13 June). It will recommend some changes to government plans, but is expected largely to fall in with Prime Minister David Cameron’s wishes for more competition and private involvement.

Concerns about NHS privatisation are likely to remain strong, however, after a joint investigation by Pulse and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has revealed that at least half the board members of some GP consortia have links with a single, large private healthcare company.

The official NHS Future Forum review of the health service in England has been led by former Royal College of GPs chief Professor Steve Field, has carried out more than 200 consultation events with doctors, nurses and patients.

The exercise, billed by government as ‘independent’, has been running for two months, after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s proposals ran into a political firestorm.

But critics are suspicious that the Forum is reporting only a week after the end of the government commissioned “listening” exercise, and that its findings were already heavily shaped by the agenda set out by the Coalition.

Dr Laurence Buckman, chair of the General Practitioner Committee, told GP magazine on 10 June: “We are not so much fascinated by what the NHS Future Forum says, it’s what the government’s response will be [that interests us]… Why do governments always run to enthusiasts and advisers with a vested interest first? We [doctors] have been telling this government what we think – and we will know [soon] whether they have been listening to us.”

 

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingNHS news review

NHS news review

Spread the love

The UK Con-Dem – Conservative and Liberal-Democrat – coalition government have paused progress of the controversial health bill intended to abolish the NHS.

Nick Clegg – the discredited leader of the Liberal-Democrats who claims that he can’t remember that he was a Tory at University – has pledged to listen to ‘legitimate’ concerns about the bill. His words are very measured and unconvincing. I object to GPs being given unaccountable power to move money around from one pocket to the other BTW.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband made an unsubstantive speech. The Labour Party was very slow to show it’s opposition to the bill and it’s worth pondering on whether they actually oppose it.

Looks like you get a different shade of blue whoever you vote for.

Conservative election poster 2010

A few recent news articles concerning the UK’s Conservative and Liberal-Democrat coalition government – the ConDem’s – brutal attack on the National Health Service.

New Statesman – NHS reforms: a lesson in how not to do it

“It all seems slightly dramatic to me, but I tend to hope that Lansley knows what he’s doing,” sums up what friends in the Conservative Party have said to me about the NHS reforms over the past few months.

This remains the danger within any government: to assume someone else is getting on with it and knows what they are doing. I remember a friend in the Labour Party once saying to me, as we debated during the lead up to the Iraq War, “The thing is I trust Tony. I assume he knows what he is doing.” Well the rest, as they say, is history.

Within government, within Cabinet, everything should be challenged and nothing assumed.

We must change NHS to protect it, says Ed Miliband | Society | guardian.co.uk

Ed Miliband has set out the three principles a Labour government would bring to reforming the NHS, telling party members the “status quo” is not enough.

The Labour leader said that “to protect the NHS we need to change it”, and offered the coalition support in changing the NHS if they met the principles.

He said he came to the debate as a “reformer”, adding: “A reformer of the state as well as the market”.

New Statesman – Full Transcript | Ed Miliband | RSA Future of the NHS Speech | 4 April 2011

UNISON News | The public service union | ‘It’s our future and it’s not for sale’

(04/04/11) “Let’s send a message to this government loud and clear: the NHS is our future and it’s not for sale.”

That was the rousing welcome UNISON health delegates received from service group executive chair Lilian Macer when she opened the union’s health conference in Liverpool this morning.

Recalling that the last time conference met, before the general election, “we were concerned, fearful, at the prospect of a Tory government. But few of us thought we’d be fighting on so many fronts, so early, with so much at stake.”

NHS reforms: Lansley agrees to change health bill | Society | guardian.co.uk

Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, has acknowledged that people have “genuine” concerns about his reforms to the NHS as he announced that the government would table amendments to the bill.

Amid fears in Downing Street that Lansley has failed to explain the thinking behind his reforms, the health secretary said he would use a “natural break in the passage of the bill” to offer reassurances that the government’s sole intention is to improve the NHS.

Leading article: Revolution finally gives way to pragmatism – Leading Articles, Opinion – The Independent

The Coalition’s revolutionaries appear to have gone into reverse. In recent months we have had a comprehensive retreat from the Government on its forests policy, embarrassing disarray on tuition fees, and now ministers are signalling a change of course on their NHS reforms. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have promised a “listening exercise” on the Coalition’s health service plans. Action is out and consultation is in. Ideology has given way to pragmatism.

It remains to be seen whether this is a prelude to a watering-down of the Health and Social Care Bill, or merely an attempt to sell the reforms better. The Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, insisted in the House of Commons yesterday that the substance of the Bill will still be implemented. But it is clear that the Government is determined to ditch the revolutionary posture – “Maoist”, as Vince Cable memorably put it – adopted in the early months of the Coalition.

This change of approach on health, in particular, has a profound political significance. The NHS was one of the pillars of David Cameron’s modernisation of the Conservative Party. The Government’s ring-fencing of the health budget from the cuts imposed across the rest of the public sector was intended to demonstrate to the public that the Tories could be trusted with the NHS. But now Downing Street has woken up to the fact that the old suspicions about Conservative attitude to the public provision of healthcare are still very much alive. The medical profession has been uniformly critical of the Government’s health Bill and the general public is increasingly alarmed. Mr Cameron is pushing the pause button because he realises the seriousness of the threat to his project of detoxifying the Tory brand.

Anger over plan to close small maternity units – Health News, Health & Families – The Independent

Small NHS maternity units face closure to improve safety standards and help economies across the health service.

Experts said yesterday that those maternity units lacking access to specialist expertise should be closed to protect the lives of mothers and babies – although such closures will mean some expectant mothers having to travel further to give birth.

Responding to yesterday’s investigation by The Independent into the crisis in maternity care, Nigel Edwards, the acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, representing NHS trusts, said: “There is a broad consensus that there needs to be a substantial change in the provision of maternity services involving the downgrading or closure of smaller units to provide safer services. The changes are necessary in order to have appropriate consultant cover but it is important they are not seen as a cost-saving measure, though they may prevent trusts spending more.”

BBC News – GPs ‘should not get sole control of NHS budget’

MPs have heaped more pressure on the government for its overhaul of the NHS in England by suggesting GPs should not be allowed to take control of the budget all by themselves.

The House of Commons’ health committee said they should be joined by a range of staff including nurses and hospital doctors to decide how funds are spent.

The move would improve accountability and decision-making, the MPs said.

It came as ministers plan a new push to convince people of the need for change.

NHS reform plans to be re-examined

The Government’s controversial NHS reforms are to be re-examined after the Health Secretary admitted some groups had “genuine concerns” about the plans, including the speed of the changes.

In the face of mounting opposition, Andrew Lansley was forced to make a Commons statement on Monday defending aspects of the Health and Social Care Bill, which completed its committee stage last week.

He said the Government would take the opportunity of a “natural break” in the passage of the Bill to “pause, listen and engage” over the concerns and bring forward amendments to “improve the plans further”.

Clegg pledge over NHS shake-up concerns – Health News, Health & Families – The Independent

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has promised to address concerns over the Government’s controversial NHS reforms as MPs called for “significant changes” to the plans.

The cross-party Commons Health Committee urged a rethink of the proposals, with former Tory health secretary and committee chairman Stephen Dorrell saying it is not a case of merely recommending “minor tweaking” of the Health and Social Care Bill.

One of the points the committee stressed is that GPs should not be solely in charge of commissioning services for patients. However, Mr Clegg said he believed it was an “uncontroversial idea” to hand them more responsibility.

Reform of NHS ignites rebellion (From The Northern Echo)

THE flagship NHS shake-up is savaged by a Tory-led committee of MPs today – just hours after the government was forced to slam the brakes on its progress, to calm public fears.

Key aspects of the Health and Social Care Bill are torpedoed by the Commons health select committee, which warns of lax controls over £60bn of taxpayers’ cash and the risk of free-market competition harming care.

The damning report comes after Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced a “natural break” in the Bill’s passage, to allow ministers to “pause, listen and engage”, to counter a rising tide of criticism.

Health Bill – must be no way back for coalition’s destructive NHS plan

Reacting to the publication today (Tuesday) of the report by the influential cross-party health select committee, Unite the union said that the coalition’s chaotic changes to the NHS are now so widely reviled they cannot be saved by the government.

The select committee has warned that the forthcoming changes lack accountability and that the secretary of state cannot abandon his role as the politician responsible for the performance of the health service. It also warns that the new system of GPs taking charge of both purchasing and providing care could result in serious conflicts of interest. The report is the latest in a long line of criticism of the government’s health and social care bill.

Len McCluskey, Unite general secretary said: “The committtee raises profound questions about the government’s competence when it comes to the NHS. It rightly warns that massive £20 billion cuts to health spending at a time of rising care demands is a fundamental challenge to the NHS’s operations. To then pile a chaotic, bureaucratic restructuring of the service on top of massive cuts can only be regarded as irresponsible. Far from improving our NHS this government is setting it on the road to certain ruin – and privatisation.

 

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingNHS news review

Cameron’s Multicultural Speech :: Part 3

Spread the love

Here’s the final part of my analysis of David Cameron’s Multiculturalism speech delivered on 5 February 2011. Here’s the first and second part.

Cameron’s speech was widely reported as opposing what he termed ‘state multiculturalism’ – that the state supports groups that actively oppose “our values”. Apart from the fact that “our values” is mostly undefined and that a unified set of values does not actually exist, this thesis would not be particularly controversial. Cameron extends far beyond this superficial argument and it is understandable that Muslim groups objected to his speech. Cameron repeatedly repeats the rhetoric of the previous administration under Tony Blair.

Cameron argues that young Muslims are drawn to so-called ‘extremist ideology’ since they do not either identify with traditional Islam or a British identity.

I notice that the way it’s stated is noteworthy “We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.” Notice that it’s not a society to which they feel they want to belong but a vision, an image.

Cameron: “We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.” ‘Our values’ is somewhat defined in terms of intolerance.

Cameron proceeds in his prejudice “So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them.  But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them.  The failure, for instance, of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage, the practice where some young girls are bullied and sometimes taken abroad to marry someone when they don’t want to, is a case in point.” This is prejudice since it is generalising to all from a few examples. That’s prejudice.

Cameron continues by discussing what he calls ‘a process of radicalisation’.”Internet chatrooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated.  In some mosques, preachers of hate can sow misinformation about the plight of Muslims elsewhere.  In our communities, groups and organisations led by young, dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging Muslims to define themselves solely in terms of their religion.  All these interactions can engender a sense of community, a substitute for what the wider society has failed to supply.  Now, you might say, as long as they’re not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this?”

I certainly do say what is the problem with all this? Cameron is discussing simple fellowship and support common to many – if not all – religious groups. He is saying that it’s acceptable for all religious groups except Islam. It’s ok for Jews and born-again Christians, but not Muslims.

“Well, I’ll tell you why.  As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called ‘non-violent extremists’, and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence.  And I say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past.  And if we are to defeat this threat, I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.  So first, instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and as societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.  And second, instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone.”

David ‘Tony Blair’ Cameron talking. The trouble is that all sorts of other so-called extremism is tolerated. Cameron is saying that it is unacceptable for one distinct sector of society to discuss or hold radical views.

“At the same time, we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly-funded institutions like universities or even, in the British case, prisons.  Now, some say, this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry.  Well, I say, would you take the same view if these were right-wing extremists recruiting on our campuses?  Would you advocate inaction if Christian fundamentalists who believed that Muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prisons?  And to those who say these non-violent extremists are actually helping to keep young, vulnerable men away from violence, I say nonsense.”

That’s interfering with the rights of freedom of expression and association and he can hardly argue that Universities are publicly funded, can he?

“Now, governments cannot do this alone.  The extremism we face is a distortion of Islam, so these arguments, in part, must be made by those within Islam.  So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries – the vast, often unheard majority – who despise the extremists and their worldview.  Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.”

The Labour party were keen on aspirations. Peoples’ aspirations could mean what they strive to achieve without any chance of success. Also means breaths ;)

“Now, second, we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home.  Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism.  A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone.  It stands neutral between different values. But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them.  Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.  It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things.  Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.”


He’s saying that ‘our values’ is what defines us as a society – notice that wealth is conspicuously absent from that list?

That muscular liberalism is nothing like liberalism and far more like Fascism – that the State actively promotes an authoritarian ideology.

Cameron fails to mention equality before the law. I could never lie to Parliament and the British people and engage in uncounted hundreds of thousand of murders and expect to get away with it. Yet, here’s Cameron using His words and phrases. The implicit message must be that former prime minister war criminals have nothing to fear. Cameron’s values.

What about murders by police and immigration officers, even defenestrations by private companies? Cameron’s values.

Then there is Oxford’s Bullingdon Club. Some may have spent the night in a police cell. How many of them will have been served an ASBO, prosecuted for a crime or have a criminal record? I’ve seen somebody given an ASBO for peeing in a hedge never mind smashing restaurant windows. Cameron’s values.

The message to Cameron is that we most definitely do not share your values.

“There are practical things that we can do as well.  That includes making sure that immigrants speak the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum.  Back home, we’re introducing National Citizen Service: a two-month programme for sixteen-year-olds from different backgrounds to live and work together.  I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people.  That way, common purpose can be formed as people come together and work together in their neighbourhoods.  It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.

So, let me end with this. This terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us.  It cannot be ignored or contained; we have to confront it with confidence – confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the ideas that warp so many young minds at their root, and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for a much broader and generous vision of citizenship in our countries.  Now, none of this will be easy.  We will need stamina, patience and endurance, and it won’t happen at all if we act alone.  This ideology crosses not just our continent but all continents, and we are all in this together.  At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life.  That is why this is a challenge we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome.  Thank you.”

I know that it’s not indiscriminate.

Continue ReadingCameron’s Multicultural Speech :: Part 3

Cameron’s Multicultural Speech :: Part 2

Spread the love

I started analysing Cameron’s speech on multiculturalism yesterday. I’m looking at the speech in more detail today.

DC: But the biggest threat that we face comes from terrorist attacks, some of which are, sadly, carried out by our own citizens. It is important to stress that terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group. My country, the United Kingdom , still faces threats from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland . Anarchist attacks have occurred recently in Greece and in Italy , and of course, yourselves in Germany were long scarred by terrorism from the Red Army Faction. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam, and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. Last week at Davos I rang the alarm bell for the urgent need for Europe to recover its economic dynamism, and today, though the subject is complex, my message on security is equally stark. We will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. Of course, that means strengthening, as Angela has said, the security aspects of our response, on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering.

The threat from terrorism is hugely exaggerated. “some of which are … carried out by our own citizens”. Unfortunately we are subjects rather than citizens in UK. While I accept that USUK often kill their own people, it is wrong to attribute it to ordinary citizens or subjects.

I do not accept that “… we should acknowledge that this threat comes in Europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of Islam …”.

DC: But this is just part of the answer. We have got to get to the root of the problem, and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. We should be equally clear what we mean by this term, and we must distinguish it from Islam. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia. Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist worldview, including real hostility towards Western democracy and liberal values. It is vital that we make this distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again, people equate the two. They think whether someone is an extremist is dependent on how much they observe their religion. So, they talk about moderate Muslims as if all devout Muslims must be extremist. This is profoundly wrong. Someone can be a devout Muslim and not be an extremist. We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.

I do not accept that the root of the problem is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. There is actually very little evidence that there are terrorists inspired by Islamist extremism. Granted you have a few individuals but there is very little support for the proposition that Islamist extremists are responsible for major terrorist incidents. For example, the Bush administration has obstructed investigations into 911, many of the alleged suicide bombers were found to be alive, there is strong evidence that the buildings were demolished and many more problems with the official fantasy. Similarly with the 7 July 2005 London explosions there are huge problems with the contention that Islamist terrorists were responsible e.g. the nature of the explosives and the fact that the train that the official narrative originally claimed that the alleged terrorists had caught did not exist. Then there is the anthrax post-911 and the ricin plot without ricin and without a plot in UK pre invasion of Iraq. What about the “plain-clothes soldiers” found in Basra with bomb equipment? Terrorism has been used by USUK to increase support for their extremis agendas.

It is quite possible to have extreme hostility to so-called Western democracy and liberal values without resorting to terrorism. So-called Western democracy is about Western politicians pursuing extremist foreign policies that are intended to simultaneously satisfy powerful interest groups and increase their own personal wealth.

This implied distinction between Islamic extremism and Islam being distinct is interesting. Surely an Islamic extremist is a devout Islamist. I think that this is a false distinction and Cameron is attempting to cause splits within Islamism. This would mirror the propaganda we saw in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq playing on assumed differences.

DC: This highlights, I think, a significant problem when discussing the terrorist threat that we face. There is so much muddled thinking about this whole issue. On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

“If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.” Tunisia and Egypt have Western values? I wondered yesterday what Western values were and arrived at the conclusion that the West is dominated by Capitalism. Dick Cheney, Berlusconi and Tony Blair have supported Mubarak. If Cameron’s argument that there are unified “Western values” is accepted, then these influential Western voices must represent it.

DC: The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem; Islam emphatically is not. Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us to confront the former. On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. So, they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say, “Get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.” But this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK and elsewhere have been graduates and often middle class. They point to grievances about Western foreign policy and say, “Stop riding roughshod over Muslim countries and the terrorism will end.” But there are many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who are angry about Western foreign policy, but who don’t resort to acts of terrorism. They also point to the profusion of unelected leaders across the Middle East and say, “Stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish.” But this raises the question: if it’s the lack of democracy that is the problem, why are there so many extremists in free and open societies?

Cameron is copying Blair’s July 2005 speech here with the use of straw men arguments. Blair –

If it is the plight of the Palestinians that drives them, why, every time it looks as if Israel and Palestine are making progress, does the same ideology perpetrate an outrage that turns hope back into despair?

If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first ever election? If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?

What was September 11, 2001 the reprisal for? Why even after the first Madrid bomb (in March 2004) and the election of a new Spanish government, were they planning another atrocity when caught?

Why if it is the cause of Muslims that concerns them, do they kill so many with such callous indifference?

The straw man argument proposes a similar but incorrect position in order to demolish that position. The problem is that this is far to simplistic, suggests and has the flavour of propaganda. There are too many different actors with different motivations for such a simplistic analysis. However, I can play that game too.

If it is the plight of the Afghans that motivates them, why did they first try to reach agreement to lay the proposed pipelines and only later invade along the route of the proposed oil pipeline?

If it is the plight of Iraqis that concerns them, why did they invade using the strategy of Shock & Awe and manage to kill and traumatise so many Iraqis? Why did they engage in such degrading torture at Abu Ghraib?

If it is the plight of Iraqis that concerns them, why did they have to poison the environment for years to come using Depleted Uranium?

If it is concern for democracy and human rights that concerns them, why have they got Guantanamo Bay engaging in such horrific torture?

If they are on the side of truth and justice, why do they have to torture people to get the false confessions of terrorism that they need?

Continue ReadingCameron’s Multicultural Speech :: Part 2

Cameron’s Multicultural Speech :: Part 1

Spread the love

This article is the first part of a response and rebuttal of the claims made in UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech of 5 Fubruary 2011. I suggest that Cameron was being deliberately untruthful in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Cameron criticised “state multiculturalism” at a security conference in Munich on 5 February. It wasn’t much of a speech from somebody we are led to believe has a formidable intellect and graduated with PPE from Oxford. Either he’s not that able or he’s simply not making the effort.

The speech is an attack on Muslims and Islam. Despite appearances, Muslims and Islam are the only issues attacked by Cameron. Multiculturalism is a fact in UK. Cameron is saying that those that support “extremist ideology” should not be supported by the UK state. It’s hardly a controversial topic except that it is only Muslims that are identified as extremists. It’s unnerving that Cameron blames “extremist ideology”.

The speech echoes Tony Blair’s “evil ideology” speech to the Labour Party conference nine days following the London explosions of 2005. Blair’s speech in turn was based on and echoed George Bush’s speech of 911. We see the theme of attacks on “our way of life” in all three speeches. Cameron also echoes Blair in “our values” and going for the root of the problem. Blair emphasised that the roots are deep.

It is disappointing that Cameron is continuing in Neo-Con policies of terrorism. I had hoped for a more informed and enlightened approach. While many stupid and brainwashed Americans may believe discredited 911 bullshit, hardly anyone else does.

Since UK is multicultural, there is no definitive “our way of life”. What we have is domination of the economic, political and social spheres by Capitalism. Capitalism serves the interests of a tiny elite of extremely rich individuals and families. Capitalism is against the interests of the vast majority of UK subjects.

David Cameron appears in an image of Oxford's Bullingdon club.
Bullingdon club features David Cameron (top 2nd left) and Boris Johnson.
Continue ReadingCameron’s Multicultural Speech :: Part 1