And in "other NHS news", we have: Circle Health requesting a £ multi-millions loan from the government Once again: state bad - private good eh?

And in "other NHS news", we have: Circle Health requesting a £ multi-millions loan from the government Once again: state bad - private good eh?

cod'ead wrote:And in "other NHS news", we have: Circle Health requesting a £ multi-millions loan from the government Once again: state bad - private good eh? Sounds like profit privatised whilst risk is socialised. Also, there's an interesting link in that article to another article about Tory links to Circle Health. I don't think it's sufficient for MPs to merely declare interests in the register, it should be completely prohibited for MPs with such interests to take any part whatsoever in the area for which they are being paid by outside interests. There's a word for it ... corruption... and they are getting away with it.

cod'ead wrote:And in "other NHS news", we have: Circle Health requesting a £ multi-millions loan from the government Once again: state bad - private good eh? Sounds like profit privatised whilst risk is socialised. Also, there's an interesting link in that article to another article about Tory links to Circle Health. I don't think it's sufficient for MPs to merely declare interests in the register, it should be completely prohibited for MPs with such interests to take any part whatsoever in the area for which they are being paid by outside interests. There's a word for it ... corruption... and they are getting away with it.

Currently doing a spot of work on this: from memory, there are 76 MPs and around 200 peers with private interests linked to private health (this can include the likes of PR work for private health companies).

They're not barred from voting on something that they have personal financial interests in. Councillors are – but not MPs and peers.

They should have to mention their interest every time they speak on those topics and be barred from being on a committee or voting on topics around those interests.
I can't think of a good reason why it isn't that way already.

I can: private financial gain. And they'd have to legislate on it themselves.

I got that ... which is why I said "good" reason.

The phrase is "confrontational politics", its what our parliament is built on, the way its worked for hundreds of years.

The argument goes that in order to present a balanced view you have to have representatives from both sides to present those views and if an MP is employed by one of the interested parties then he's in a good position to present that point.

Where the wheel fall off is when a majority of MP's have business interests in various parties and whilst declaring them in a often ignored register, fail to mention the fact during debates and votes - everyone has an opinion on a topic and thats why we place them in parliament but technically they should be there to represent the majority of their constituents views, not the view of a secret paymaster.

Oh I imagine they think there's no better one.

Jeremy Hunt's plan to downgrade Lewisham hospital because a neighbouring PFI-funded trust (in a Tory borough) is in trouble ruled unlawful by the high court. Excellent news.

Jeremy Hunt's plan to downgrade Lewisham hospital because a neighbouring PFI-funded trust (in a Tory borough) is in trouble ruled unlawful by the high court. Excellent news.

Mintball wrote:Jeremy Hunt's plan to downgrade Lewisham hospital because a neighbouring PFI-funded trust (in a Tory borough) is in trouble ruled unlawful by the high court. Excellent news. Aye - I hope there are a few mispronounced attempts at his name in the coverage later too.

Mintball wrote:Jeremy Hunt's plan to downgrade Lewisham hospital because a neighbouring PFI-funded trust (in a Tory borough) is in trouble ruled unlawful by the high court. Excellent news. Aye - I hope there are a few mispronounced attempts at his name in the coverage later too.