However it is really sad to see a once useful and impartial source decline so steeply.
The "Independent" newspaper has now joined the other News International papers (News of the World, Sun) and the Daily Mail as a repository for Government spin and cheap nasty spoon-fed journalism.
Firstly, we have the journalist Johann Hari, who leaves the paper after being shown to be a serial plagiariser, and over the last 2 days we have two pieces of snide and nasty journalism by Oliver Wright, the first taking an unwarranted aim at Dr Clare Gerada (that's right Oliver, she's a woman and a 'Dr', not a 'Ms') and now with a pathetic piece saying a poll is not representative of the Royal College of GPs. In this piece Mr Wright quotes two members of council - one says the opposition is 'political', another says it relied on an online poll. RCGP Council consists of around 90 GPs, and I know one member of Council who is ardently pro-Government. To find two opponents is not surprising. The vast majority of GPs are vehemently against the Bill.
These two pieces have been put in at the behest of Tory central office, for which Mr Wright is clearly a conduit. It is a sign of the decline of the Independent, and the desperation of the Government.
Bad, bad, bad.
15 comments:
JD, I despair. You may be well meaning. but your once informative blog has become a vehicle for a subjective daily rant laced with ad hominen attacks on those with whom you disagree. The Independent articles you quote both give balanced assessments of what is going on with this wretched bill – including mentioning the risk that it may finally bring the government down. The assessment of Clare Gerada is objective, balanced and fair. The Hurley Group, which she co-leads, is well placed to jump into the private sector. Whether or not it will is irrelevant. What is relevant is that is there is a clear clash of interest, and we should be made aware of that.
You own blindness to the truth can no longer be excused. You are moving into the field of spin and dishonesty. The Independent articles are neither snide nor pathetic.. If you don’t agree with something, you resort to abuse. You keep saying that “the vast majority of GPs are against the bill”. Simply not true. You have no grounds for making that statement other your own blind prejudice. The real fact is that the vast majority of GPs have not read the bill and approach it with the same sigh of frustration with which they approached all the micro-management of your New Labour administration. This is proved by the detail of t he survey that you, dishonestly, never quote:
In the survey members (i.e. GP members of the RCGP) were asked if the college should proceed with calling for the withdrawal of the Bill even if it did not receive the support of other medical colleges; 1,760 members said yes, 41 said no, 96 expressed no opinion and 1,223 skipped the question.
Do the sums, JD. Of the 3120 GPs polled, 60% abstained or said ‘no’. Only ‘40%’ supported withdrawal. So what you would be saying, if you were honest, would be that a majority of GPs do not wish to have the bill withdrawn. It get worse. You always fail to mention the fact that the majority of GPs in the country do not give a toss about the Royal College of General Practitioners. They are not active members, they don’t pay the annual subscription, and they only have the letters after their name because of an exam they once took. My wife is a committed GP but, like all members of her large group practice, has no interest in the College or its activities. Her view is that yet another government is once again rearranging the deck chairs. And, when the other lot get back in, the NHS deck chairs will be moved again. Add in the likely views of the non-politically active GPs in the country, and that is most of them, and the fact is, JD, that the overwhelming majority of them have not expressed a wish that the bill be withdrawn.
GPs husband
GPs husband - there's nowt so blind as prejudice. You need to check your sums.
If any political party got 40% in a general election they would probably get into power!
There are undoubtedly senior members of the RCGP who have strong personal motivation to talk to the press and discredit the RCGP's stance on the Health Bill. Dare one suggest Dr John Chisholm, for instance? He neatly negotiated a loophole in the GP contract in 2004 which he then stepped through and set up Concordia Health, a company which runs surgeries on the basis of a business model that includes the generous use of nurses. I can't think that his business would be anything but boosted by the Health Bill.
Watch your back Dr Gerada; see what happens when you become an irritant to politicians with influence.
So, anonymous 14:05, are you implying that the company Hurley Group LLC, of which Dr Clare Gerada is a partner/director is any different to Concordia Health? From what I can gather both are run as private businesses, except that Hurley display the NHS logo and purport to be an "NHS organisation" whatever that means.
Clearly her views, as part of that organisation, on the direction of the NHS are rather different.
Take a look at the Concordia Health website under the heading Concordia. That is about as clear a statement of support for the White Paper (that sets out the new Health Bill) as I have seen. As for the management-speak..... Too many meetings with politicians and civil servants perhaps?
Dr Clare Gerada is one of the few senior medical establishment figures talking sense.
It looks to me like she is in a good position to make a lot more money in a privatised NHS? But, going forward with a vision of business is not my forte.
So, her criticism of the "Sell the NHS" bill looks like principle above profit.
In contrast a lot of the supporter "organisations" and prospective Knights of the Order of Fred the Shred actually look dodgy.
Anonymous GP husband. Thank you for your opinion. Random use of figures do not make a case for the Bill where the opposition is so overwhelming.
Even Conservative Home are coming out against this Nill which will do to Cameron what the "Poll Tax" did to Thatcher.
Dr No was quite right to challenge my sums. They were wrong.
1760 said ‘yes’
1360 abstained or said ‘no’
Total polled 1760 + 1360 = 3120
1360/3120 * 100 = 43%
Apologies. “Merely” 43% are not in favour of scrapping the bill. This is not “the random use of figures” JD, it is an answer to your endless assertions that “everyone” is against the bill. Not true. And, as he said on the TODAY programme this morning, Tim Montgomerie is not against the bill because of its content. He is against it because he fears it has become a poll tax millstone that will damage the Tories.
Most GPs just want to get on with the job of caring for patients. They don’t want to be managers, company directors or accountants. The few who do seek such work always float to the top of the barrel when committee is set up. Doesn’t matter if it’s Thatcher’s fundholding, Blair’s commissioning or Cameron’s stealthy privatisation.
Clare Gerada was a trainee psychiatrist but is now an ambitious GP politician currently presiding over a healthcare empire which could privatise itself before the JD could say CBE. How much do you think the top brass at Hurley are earning? How many salaried doctors are working for them? See what Professor Field says in last week’s Pulse:
She is the biggest provider of general practice in London, she employs about 100 salaried doctors, provides fantastic care and has won more Darzi contracts in competition than anyone else. And so I think Clare is espousing all of the things I think should happen, with competition, and working in deprived areas with fantastic care and a different model. ‘
In response to the comments, Dr Gerada told Pulse she was 'very proud' of her practice.
All those salaried doctors (£80K a year if they are full time and lucky) doing the work that partners (£120K a year and upwards) used to do. And who, do you think, is keeping the change? These health care factories as a way for clever GP managers to extract huge sums of money from the NHS without having to do much patient related work themselves. Look at the Hurley structure here:
http://www.hurleygroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hurley-structure-July-112.pdf
How many hours a week does Dr Gerada spend seeing patients? She says she is a GP in Kennington – but if you check out the Hurley Kennington site, she is not listed there. So, there is a challenge to the JD. Where does Gerada see her patients? Is there any evidence that she has any scheduled GP sessions? But you just bet your bottom dollar that she is taking a large wedge of taxpayers' money to support her whilst she plays politics and makes even more money.
I don’t understand the JD. He is always slagging off Steve Field but is a big fan of Dr Gerada’s because she has spoken out against the government bill. He has not thought it through. The JD is against the bill because he feels it is, inter alia, a threat to the wonderful kind of family based medicine that he provides. And it may be. But what the poor old well meaning but naïve JD doesn’t understand is that when Dr Gerada and her health factories take over, the JD and all like him will be out of a job. Gerada, earning who knows what (?? £500K), will take over whilst the wage-slave salaried doctors do the work.
GPs husband
And I see the normally anodyne Independent is on to this too:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/why-health-bills-biggest-critic-has-a-lot-to-lose-from-reforms-6660994.html
GPs husband
The message from Conservative Home is very confusing, it certainly doesn't represent the views of grass-roots Conservatives: http://bit.ly/zW2R9C
No it doesn't. It represents Tim Montgomerie's fear that the Bill - whatever its merits - will become the NHS whipping boy and may damage the Conservative's electoral chance
GPs husband
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/look-at-
Ben Goldacre has a good article about the smear of Dr Gerada by anonymous "senior Government sources" ie presumably "advisors" planted by the privateers?
http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/look-at-this-smear-on-the-gps-leader-by-olive
GPs husband: why do you keep adding pathetic 41 who said no to 1319 abstained or said ‘no’. Perhaps you would like to add the people who didn't vote for the ConDems to the NuLabour vote and keep dear Gordon in number 10?
In any democratic vote, if you don't vote you don't count. So be honest and accept that a huge majority voted against the bill. No one knows what the non-voters believe so they can't be added to any group, just like a general election.
Hmm. the Independent piece is spoilt by its (now edited out) unpleasant personalised attack on Gerada. But 'holier than thou' Goldacre is disingenuous about Clare Gerada - he omits to mention that he and Clare are mates - both having working at the Maudsley
Tush Tush
Ben Goldacre should stick to what he knows best, "Bad Science". Politics really isn't his thing.
Here's the view of someone who cares;
http://www.drunacoales.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment