Archived entries for

NHS reforms lanced by a Boyle

This week the Young Fabians Science and Society Network met with John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Health, to share our views on the latest NHS reform proposals and to hear his on how Labour plans to defend the NHS.

The National Health Service remains at the heart of British identity, embodying the best of our nation’s political and social values. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans, even in their current watered down version, threaten the future of an organisation that regularly polls as more popular than either the creation of the modern welfare system or the end of World War II.

The NHS was 63 years old on Tuesday, having starting life when Nye Bevan opened Manchester’s Park Hospital in 1948. Since 1997, when Labour gained power, it has had its best years: funding was trebled under Labour; 90,000 new nurses were added; and waiting lists were radically reduced. In the face of a sustained trend of NHS improvement, Lansley is proposing a reckless revolution that vexes the medical establishment.

Sir Roger Boyle, government health ‘Tsar’ and National Director of Heart Disease, has just announced his retirement in disgust at the Tory plans. Boyle was on the Today programme this week. He has worked under six health ministers of different political stripes but simply felt he could not continue in his role as the government voluntarily places massive extra strain on the NHS at a time when it is ill-suited to take it.

Given the current fiscal environment, the coming years were always going to be extremely difficult for the NHS. This would be no different were Labour still in power. What worries me and Boyle is that the Tory-led government is choosing this most inopportune of moments to ratchet up the pressure on the NHS by forcing through a full scale organisational resign. Never mind that the Tory government won power on a promise to end top-down reorganisation of the NHS – you could see this one from space.

Boyle says that “he feels in his bones that the current plans are not correct”.

Me too.

Given the financial squeeze on all aspects of healthcare delivery, we should be maintaining and supporting existing structures to ensure stability and continuation of services. Instead, Lansley is breaking up the organisational infrastructure in the face of strong opposition from medical and patient groups. Even if you think the structural reforms are in themselves good- and I don’t- this is certainly not the right time to be implementing them.

At a time of unprecedented financial pressure on the NHS, we should be perusing a policy of progress through gradual evolution (quite Fabian that) rather than opting to restructure when this inevitably means NHS staff will take their eyes off the ball and start to fear for their jobs.

Daniel Bamford is Networks Officer for the Young Fabians.

Rihanna is a lovely lass but I wish she would put her flower away

Earlier this week, pop-star Rihanna was defiant over her latest music video in which she shoots someone who raped her. US parent groups were up in arms at the message that sent to the nation’s children.

Those who bought the album (who does that these days?) to find out more will have been shocked: the sleeve depicts Rhianna’s crotch on full unclothed display save for a strategically positioned rose*.

Meanwhile on our side of the pond, today will see the publication of the Department of Education’s report into the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood. Written by Reg Bailey, CEO of the Mother’s Union, leaks suggest its headline suggestion will be the introduction of film-style age ratings for music videos.

As suggestive content continues its migration from the top shelf to day-time TV and mobile devices, this is a welcome recommendation.

Sex surrounds children and pressurises parents. Popping out to buy a teddy bear vest, a mother may well find the item displayed next to honey-I-shrunk-the-adult mini-bras, lacy camisoles, hotpants and mini-skirts. If it’s football season, you’ll probably find “Future Wag” and “Marry me, Mr Giggs” tops on discount. FCUK, Top Shop and Next have both been criticised for selling such items; only concerted parental activism has tempered their marketing efforts.

I’m not one myself but I know many parents who are deeply uncomfortable with what their young children are exposed to. They don’t like the clobber on retailers’ shelves, the raunchiness of the X-factor or Bratz dolls equipped with the latest makeup compact and accompanying air of moral flexibility. They are up for protecting their children from certain of society’s modern influences, a bit of cotton wool is their request.

At first glance, this seems an odd argument for a young progressive to be backing: all a bit retired Colonel, a bit Midsommer Murders, a bit… Daily Mail. But it’s not, and here’s why.

As progressives that place communities and healthy social relationships at the core of our politics, we need to fight forces that either seek to undermine those values or do so inadvertently. The sexualisation of music videos is in the second category.

Reg Bailey has been a tireless campaigner against premature sexualisation. His report will tighten regulations on sexualised music videos and provide a single portal for parents to complain about products that are inappropriate for children. Mr Bailey is expected to recommend that the retail, advertising and video industries get 18 months to clean up their acts or face tougher regulation.

Compared with times prior to the new media revolution, today’s children have less room to develop independent from media influences. They are increasingly squeezed by an ever increasing array of media sources and devices. Music heavily influences childhood. Looking at their role-models, it is no wonder that so many young teenagers choose paths that ruin their futures.

Lads flick on MTV and are entranced by the lifestyle of rappers who glorify violence and drugs; girls see a strong correlation between success and size 6 thighs.

It is not hard to see why teenagers, who feel they have few other options, opt to dedicate their teenage years to becoming the next member of So Solid Crew or the next Lady Gaga.

A female teacher friend of mine recently described how it was standard amongst the Sixth Form girls at her school to have a “boopsie“, a boy whom they are not in a relationship with but that will give them money. For what, exactly, is hard to pin down but it is unlikely to be a frank exchange of views.

My friend thought this was nuts. It is nuts. But these girls didn’t think so. They were shocked that ‘miss’ didn’t have a similar arrangement. For teenagers both female and male such commodotisation of relationships between the sexes is common. They have become normalised to it. It is what they expect.

Is it any surprise then that by the time they are teenagers, 900,000 girls in this country have feelings of worthlessness and depression, according to a recent Demos report.

None of these girls really chose “boopsie”: it is a norm created by their cultural influences. In this case, the school was in South London, the predominant musical influences from the West-Indian Raga and Dancehall scenes with their screamingly misogynistic lyrics. As the Sugar Spice n Things Not Nice blog points out:

While an example of this is easy to find in almost every dancehall song whether it is popular or not, Vybz Kartel’s latest single called “Tun Up The Fuck” (Turn up the Fuck). Here the lyrics consist of him saying “Ayy yuh tight pum pum gal, Mi love when yuh skin out fi mi fuck yuh” (Hey you tight p*ssy girl, I love when you spread it out for me to f*ck you).

The rest of the song consists of him bragging about his sexual stamina (without the use of viagra) and the ways in which he plans to make her orgasm.

Closer to home, the streets of London have produced the much acclaimed soul/ hip-hop artist Plan B. Whilst now more commercial and mainstream, his 2006 album contained songs told from the perspective of murderers, rapists and other violent agents. Citing European film, Plan B argues that he should be treated in the same way as film directors and writers: as a storyteller and narrator of disturbing events, not as a glamourising confessor.

His point is valid: talking is not the same as doing. His artistic right of expression needs to be balanced against the rights of parents to protect their children when they are young and vulnerable.

So, where to draw the line?

The Rolling Stones’ song, Brown Sugar, is a national treasure. X Factor contestants and soft drink advertisers fall over themselves to use it. But the song is also a narrative of a slave owner’s pleasure at raping and beating his black female slave. A sensible combination of softly-softly legislation in the form of age ratings for music videos couple with a strong incentive for the media to self-regulate is a good start**.

Society has a responsibility to collectively protect our children and allow them to develop relationships with each other based on mutual respect and an understanding of one another’s worth. Such judgements take a whole childhood and adolescence to form and we need to shield children from influences that push them in the direction of objectifying and commoditising other members of their communities.

Daniel Bamford is Young Fabian Networks Officer.

*I’ve not been able to contact Rihanna’s office for comment but if she’s interested I would happily discuss this article with her over a bottle of wine. I would tell her that she’s gob-smackingly talented enough not to need to go down the crotch/ rose route. If she still doesn’t want to lose the rose, like Robbie and Kylie, she should not mind doing it for the kids.

** Good next steps will likely come out of the Young Fabian’s Communities Policy Commission.

Turning on cabinet colleagues: not good for our health

Following the drubbing his party endured during the local elections and that he received on AV, Nick Clegg has moved to make NHS reform his new number one priority.

Over the weekend, he vowed on the Andrew Maar show to veto the Health Bill unless Andrew Lansley backs down on one of his red-line reforms: forcing GPs to take responsibility for commissioning care.

As I point out in the latest edition of Anticipations, in reforming care commissioning it is vital to ensure that medical practitioners are fully on side. Lansely has failed to convince them and so this element of the reforms must be re-thought. Otherwise the GP-led implementation of the reforms will be chaotic.

The count of health bodies taking aim at the Heath Secretary is growing by the day. In April, the Royal College of Nurses carried a vote of no confidence in the Health Secretary by 99% to 1%. This morning Dr Gerada, the Chairman of the Royal College of GPs, labelled the proposals as “actually risking the NHS and risking the NHS being unravelled irreversibly for ever”.

As the Health Secretary receives blow after blow from industry experts, David Cameron and Nick Clegg appear to have decided to hang him out to dry. Cameron and Clegg have ripped up Lansley’s White Paper- reforms they explicitly both signed up to – and have sidelined the Heath Secretary as Number 10 pushes its own agenda. Lansley is now not even being invited to key meetings as the FT reported earlier this month.

A  senior Tory MP described his colleagues’ treatment of the Health Secretary as “outrageous”. Each passing day makes Lansley’s hold on his job less a grip and more a cling.The bigger the Cameron/Clegg-agreed U-turn ultimately is, the worse his chances of survival. And though still in office, he  is already a lame-duck.

Yes his reforms were ill thought out but surely no minister deserves this kind of treatment from his cabinet leaders who were willing to back him fully when the going looked good.

Lansley’s personal politico-tragedy aside, the real loser from Cameron and Clegg’s coalition posturing is the NHS and its patients. Lansley himself has consistently argued that to allow GPs to opt in or out would create a “two-tier” health service. He believes two systems would hurt care and efficiency. This is what happened with Ken Clake’s ill-fated experiment  with GP fund-holding in 1991 . It would happen again.

Nick Clegg’s approach on this issue is especially damaging. Trying to claw back some of the left-leaning liberals he has been haemorrhaging, he reeled off another ‘let-me-be-very-clear’ statement:  “Let me just be very clear: as far as government legislation is concerned no bill is better than a bad one.” This is completely at odds with his and Cameron’s piecemeal revision of Lansley’s White Paper. Clegg risks it becoming far worse than the sum of its parts.

The only Lib Dem talking sense on the matter is Simon Hughes, deputy Lib Dem leader. He underlined the resolve of many of his party MPs in calling for ministers to “go back to the drawing-board” on health. With Chris Hune’s past misdemeanours catching up with him (again) at the weekend, perhaps Simon Hughes is the Lib Dem rival Clegg should be watching at leadership rumours circulate.

He at least knows that the country, the professional experts and his own party do not want this Bill.

Daniel Bamford is Networks Officer of the Young Fabians.

Cameron & Clegg: Fiddling while Egypt burns?

As the world waits to see how events in Egypt unfold, we are all holding our breath. Egyptian cities remain tinderboxes ready to go up should the tug of war between democracy and autocracy go the wrong way. During the last 17 days, David Cameron and other western leaders have done nothing, simply hoping for the best while doing their upmost to ignore the gigantic white elephant in the room: their pro-autocrat policies.

The New York Times has pointed out that Cameron, Clegg and others “badly miscalculated” when endorsing Omar Suleiman to lead the transition to democracy. It should come as no shock that he is trying to retain as much power for the Mubarak regime as possible: he is a Mubarak man man. What really gets me though is the hypocrisy of western leaders.

As the Mubarak administration looks set to fall and stay fallen, we are now hearing endless western ministers denouncing the Mubarak regime. This is as should be. But why are they only speaking up now? Of course, there are issues of real politik and regional stability but western governments have gone far further than simply providing the military aid that is the necessary grubby lubricant of international diplomacy. They have lent Mubarak legitimacy.

They have allowed his henchmen to contaminate some of the highest international offices. Remember Boutros Boutros- Ghali? How did he rise to be the 6th Director General of the UN? After a career dedicated to serving Egyptian despots, including ten years as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs under Hosni Mubarak.

It strikes me as deeply worrying that liberal western governments were willing to be led by a man who owes his career to a corrupt, murderous authoritarian leader.

We also now hear of moves the Swiss government are making regarding the freezing of Mubarak bank accounts. Figures range widely but it clear the man has squirreled away many billions…BILLIONS…of the Egyptian people’s money over his twenty year rule.

Swiss bankers knew about this. America knew about this. Cameron and Clegg knew about this. Why only speak up now? Surely, there has to be a better way to achieve our regional aims than pandering to men such as Mubarak?

Earlier this week, the White House denounced Suleiman’s statement that “the [Egyptian] people are not ready for democracy”. They called it “particularly unhelpful”. What I find particular unhelpful is the excessive hypocrisy of western leaders when it comes to upholding liberal values.

The recent events in Egypt and Cameron’s depressingly accommodating stance brought back memories of Augusto Pinochet popping across to England to visit his good friend Margret Thatcher.

Western Governments should not engage in this way with tyrants that suppress and murder their own people. Cameron and Clegg should stop fiddling at the margins and start protecting the liberal values us Brits hold dear.

Daniel Bamford is the Young Fabian Networks Officer.

The Geek shall Inherit the Earth

Earlier this week, I whiled away a convivial evening with a throng of self-confessed science Geeks at the Old Monk pub in the heart of the Westminster village. By golly they were angry (and this was before a drop of Extra Special Bitter or Brewer’s Best had been spilled in anger).

What had roused them from their scientific service, from their molecules and molluscs, from their retinal research? In a word: government.

We were there with the Westminster Sceptics to discuss the shocking absence of evidence in policy making and how the government’s refusal to get serious about the reality of policy evaluation continues to harm us all.

The case for evidence-based policy was made strongly, led by ex Lib Dem MP Dr. Evan Harris and Mark Henderson, Science Editor of the Times, who is writing a book on the subject.

The clear consensus that emerged from the non-partisan crowd crystallised around two clear themes.

First, we need to ditch the idea of the ‘U-turn’ being the ultimate insult to sling in the direction of principled MPs. Parliamentarians are professional politicians; they are not professional academics, technical experts or people charged with running public service delivery organisations on an operational basis.

It is right that MPs should propose theses to be tested and put them to consultation. The conservative political culture that slams back against changes in direction after the expert evidence has been counted is all wrong. It leads to knowingly sub-optimal decisions, made by a government who should have our interests (not their own political self-image) at heart.

We should publicly celebrate MPs like Labour’s Caroline Flint, who when Minister of State for Public Health, openly refined her views in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) upon hearing the full gamut of expert views. She opened herself up to Tory criticsm but her actions were good for the legislation and good for country. It is sad I need to go back to 2008 to find a relevant example.

Second, we need to stop being afraid of using controlled public policy experiments for fear they may show the government was wrong. If that be the case: hurrah; it shows us how to make things better. It is depressing that during recent changes to how Cannabis was classified no one made a concerted effort to track the impact of the changes in line with best experimental practice.

Relatedly, select committees must not step back from continuously tracking and evaluating policy, something we see far too little of. Let’s see less bilious words being hurled incompetent bankers hauled up before the select committees. Let’s see more critical evaluation of how we get our kids to read better, get our elderly people healthier, make housing more affordable.

If we make these uncontroversial and (almost) costless changes to the way government goes about governing, it will be better for all us. Perhaps then one wit at the pub the other night was right: it is time for the Geek to inherit the earth.

Daniel is, according to some philosopher or other. He is also Young Fabians Networks Office and is hosting an event at Imperial College on March 22nd to explore these issues further. Please come along.

The Geeks and the Viagra: A Cautionary Tale

I’ve just heard that Mark Henderson, Science Editor of the Times, has been busy. He’s writing a new book about why politicians should sit up and take notice of scientists. Playing to type, it’s called ‘The Geek Manifesto’ and is on track to be released next Spring. It is an important publication.

Mark’s central thesis is that science and politics are natural bedfellows yet don’t get as much out of one another as they could. Science doesn’t always get the support it deserves from government: poor funding, badly-framed regulation, and policy initiatives such as the immigration cap hamper researchers and their work.

Equally, politics doesn’t draw often enough on the problem-solving power of the scientific method — the best tool yet developed for working out what works and how we can make things better.

The book celebrates the emerging confidence and activism of passionate scientists – Mark’s geeks – and will explain how this emerging force can change politics with more vigour than a ball of Caesium that’s getting too friendly with a bowl of water:


This book could not be any timelier I reckon. To date there has been precious little substance to the coalition government’s science message. Whilst Obama’s $20bn research payout in the 2009 stimulus package showed his commitment to science’s role in America’s economic future, the coalition’s rhetoric has so far ceased at merely noting the importance of science in the long term transition to a knowledge economy.

But then the facts. We’ve just heard that Cameron just could not get himself up to defend one of Britain’s most historic scientific facilitates from closure. Pfizer will close their Sandwich plant- famous for the serendipitous discovery of Viagra- with the ensuing loss of up to 2,400 jobs. Where is Pfizer retreating to? America.

Obama 1 – Conservative led government 0 (D Cameron OG).

These are exactly the sort of jobs we should be seeking to protect and nurture: high skilled, huge social impact, manufacturing jobs. Instead, Clan Cameron has pushed Pfizer and their jobs out the door. Worrying times to be a scientist.

The chronic lack of investment in scientific industry casts into doubt whether the jobs will exist for tomorrow’s scientists to produce the world leading innovations that the coalition is pinning our future economic hopes on. Short-sighted decisions, like the one above, show the coalition has lost the plot on this one. They need to revisit their periodic tables.

With serious concerns hanging like a Icelandic volcanic cloud over our best and brightest science graduates, what better time to join the Young Fabian Science & Society Network to debate these issues when we meet at Imperial on 22nd March?

Labour’s leading Science spokesperson, Chi Onwurah MP, will chair what promises to be a contentious and thought provoking evening. Email dbamford@theyoungfabians.org.uk if you want to know more.

Why I, for one, am glad Andy Gray spoke out against women in football

Right, bear with me. The attacking options with respect to ex-Sky Sports Presenter Andy Gray are more numerous than those confronting Wayne Rooney in a one-on-one situation.

Yes, Gray’s comments were misjudged; yes, his comments were demeaning to women; yes, his comments were boorishly puerile even by the standards of pre-schoolers. But it is not all bad: just look at how men have rallied to the cause following his comments. It is enough to make me proud of my biology.

I think Gray’s words have had a wonderfully galvanising effect on male football fans the length and breadth of the country. The maelstrom that has cost Gray and his co-presenter, Richard Keys, the dumb and dumber of sports broadcasting, their jobs has shown their pre-historic views have no place in modern football. With old, sexist attitudes previously bubbling away on a low simmer, this was the prod the game needed to make its menfolk sit up and say: you know what? It isn’t the 1950s anymore.

Sue Mott described this week in the Daily Express how twenty years ago she asked Ron Atkinson, then managing Sheffield Wednesday, for his views on women in football. This is not the kind of question Big Ron is well-equipped to answer; his reply: “a women’s place is in the kitchen, bedroom and the disco”.

Fast forward twenty years to the comments Gray and Keys made which started the train of events that led to their dismissals from their cushy £1 million-a-year jobs. Following an extremely well judged offside call in a Liverpool match, Gray said this of the lineswomen in question, Sian Massey:

“Can you believe that? A female lineman! Women don’t know the offside rule.”

Keys, rolling over and having his tummy tickled, added “Course they don’t. The game’s gone mad.”

Now that the pair have some extra time (boom, boom) on their hands, I think I’ll invite them down to watch my Sunday league team. If they think Sian Massey’s adroitly judged line call was “mad”, I would love to see what they make of the regularly egregious decisions made by our (male) referees.

Only last weekend, I played the line beautiful only to be wrongly (a view I shared alone at the time) flagged offside. I felt I had been cruelly wronged. The truth is Sian Massey, a highly trained and qualified lineswomen, made a wonderfully skilled offside call which the vast majority of the people in the stadium at the time got wrong. For Keys and Gray to denounce that as “mad” is, well, mad.

Other female sports broadcasters have reported similarly depressing tales this week. National institution, Gabby Logan, described in the Times how she was instructed to “have a baby” when she told her bosses that the shows she was being given were not stretching her.

Perhaps the lowlight was an embarrassing scene that once confronted Jacqueline Magnay. On interviewing the president of a rugby league club after a match she explained how:

“one played jumped up on a table stark naked and swung his hips to the cheers of his teammates”.

This, admittedly, was in Australia and not chilly England but one can only hope, for the player’s sake, that this incident did not happen during the winter season.

Women in sports broadcasting, as in all other forms of work, should be judged by the quality of their output and the skills they bring to the table. Sian Massey did brilliantly. She should not be subjected to such sexist nonsense; she should be fast tracked to officiate at more important games. I would love for her to call Manchester United players off-side when they next play my team, Arsenal.

The furore that has greeted Gray’s comments has shown casually ignorant sexism now ‘aint kosher in football as has long been case in other sports for years. No-one tells Paula Radcliffe or Jessica Ennis to stick to doing the dishes as they rack up medals for Team GB around the world.

It also shows how much more mature the relationship between the sexes is in Britain that in Italy, where cartoon misogynist Silvio Barely-stops-getting-ani seems to have managed to regain his oily grip on power after his centre-right friends backed him up. He’s probably offered to throw them a party to celebrate.

But back home, for Gray and Keys it’s not so much “bunga, bunga” as “bunga off”. Quite right too and I’ve managed to write this without once using the ‘Gray shown the red card’ cliché. Oh, damn.

Daniel Bamford is the Young Fabian Networks Officer.

What are YOUR big Issues for 2011?

On 15th January 2011 at the Institute of Education, London, the Young Fabians will be hosting an event at the Fabian Society New Year Conference that will explore how Labour can (re)connect with young people.

We would love to hear from YOU on what the key issues facing young people in Britain are today. We invite you to submit your thoughts in the form of a 10-30 second video, which we will edit into a 2-3 minute video for the conference.

It’s simple to have your voice heard: just upload your 10-60 second video clip to Youtube or other video hosting site and send a link to the video to Daniel Bamford.

You can also post a link to the video on the Facebook event page.



Copyright © 2004–2009. All rights reserved.

RSS Feed. This blog is proudly powered by Wordpress and is derived from Modern Clix, a theme by Rodrigo Galindez.