Several people have contacted me about the NHS Bill which was scheduled second for debate on Friday. This Bill aimed to essentially reverse the changes to the NHS introduced by the coalition government in the last Parliament.it was promoted by the former Leader of the Green Party and had the current Leader of the Labour Party named as one of its Sponsors.

A very similar bill was given a Second Reading in the last Parliament and although it progressed into the Committee Stage was ultimately abandoned.

Many of said it was undemocratic that the Bill was not given a fuller debate. I would argue that if the Labour Party had won the election they could have and no doubt would have introduced such a Bill and would have had every right to get it on to the statute book but they did not win the election.

As for debating the issue of the NHS if the Opposition want to debate it they can do anytime they like when they have one of their Opposition Day debates which they are guaranteed a set number of  in each session.

As for the time of the previous debate of foreign national offenders it was open for any member to put forward a motion to end the debate if they thought it had gone on too long. Nobody did.

Published by David Nuttall

Business and Political Consultant

9 thoughts on “NHS

  1. Hi David

    I didn’t know this page existed until earlier when a friend pointed me in the right direction and firstly I must say how encouraging it is to see an MP engage with their constituents.

    I note that you cite previous decisions by opposition parties as justification for not allowing a discussion to take place, and it’s this type of politics that is a complete turn off for the electorate. Any normal person can understand that over time, and as new developments take place peoples opinions and minds may also change, prompting the need for a new discussion.

    “If people voted for me they would not expect me to help the Labour Party get their bills onto the statute book when they lot the general election.”

    I understand this point totally, nobody is expecting you to help the opposition, but nor are we expecting you to hinder our democratic process by preventing a democratic debate, and this is not the first time you or your party have done this. We should be proud that we have a system where if there is the political will an opposition can pursue certain policies, and if the government are against these policies then surely the correct and proper way to defeat them would be to turn up to parliament, argue their points before a democratic vote in the House of Commons? If not enough of your colleagues can be bothered to follow this process then obviously there isn’t the will in your party to prevent these changes so your party have employed this cynical tactic of talking at length to waste enough time to prevent any real debate and this is why people are upset.

    This coupled with new proposals of how opposition parties can receive funding, the disproportionate distribution of additional funds for local councils and the proposals for boundary changes portraits a very sad picture where it appears that your party are quite happy to erode our democratic process, and consolidate your position.

    Nobody is expecting you to help the opposition, but in a civilised society surely the least we can expect is for you to play fair?

    On the wider point of the privatisation of the NHS, may I point out that people are genuinely worried as the perception is that bit by bit elements of our health service are being transferred to the private sector, and the stresses and pressure of the organisation appears to be at breaking point. The example of the NHS using drugs developed by the private sector somewhat misleading also, as there has never been a top scientific task-force employed by any government, funded from the public sector to develop tomorrow’s medicines. An alternative view point could be that if we did have such a task-force that head-hunted the best graduates in the field what would stop the NHS developing it’s own treatments at a fraction of the cost than what they’re currently paying – although that may dent the profit margins of some pharmacutical companies that your colleagues are linked to so I understand the dilemma of a conservative MP, on one hand do you reward the masses with better healthcare at a reduced cost to the public, where as on the other do you continue to line the pockets of your already wealthy colleagues who have a vested interest? Tough choice, but as you stated earlier to another one of your constituents, “I am not sure why you suggest I was doing anything in your name?”

  2. Here’s a question for you David. Do you think that if every person in the country was polled, the majority would be in favour of privatisation of the NHS, or against it? Feel free to guess at whether or not there would be a majority either way. Simple question, no need for one of your typically lengthy answers.

    1. Well, as always I guess it depends on the question ( for example I guess not many people would be in favour of stopping the NHS using all the drugs and medicines that have been developed by the private sector and which benefit millions every day! ) but it is hypothetical as no one is suggesting the privatisation of the NHS.

  3. Thank you for your response David. As a person who lives in Bury North and sees you as MY Member of Parliament and the person I would go to if I had a problem that my MP could help with. This is why I would suggest it David.

    I feel you represent me and all the good folk of Bury North. Instead of getting bogged down in the semantics David I would like to know the points I raised and as my member of Parliament I always look out for how you vote or discuss issues and the impact it has for better or worse on Bury North and the country as a whole.

    So indeed the other day in Parliament where a national newspaper made accusations against my MP. I ask what were your aims and objectives for your actions and what goals did you hope to achieve and how these actions benefit your constituents and people who ticked the name David Nuttall in the voting booth.

    If you would rather not inform me and others that read your website that’s fine and of course is your prerogative. Good luck for the future. Godspeed

    1. Well precisely! If people voted for me they would not expect me to help the Labour Party get their bills onto the statute book when they lot the general election.
      My view is that the reforms to the NHS are best for the people of Bury and indeed the whole country. It would be a mistake to reverse them.

      1. So you are basically saying it is Tory policy to privatise the NHS and burger off my constuients?

  4. Thank you for pointing out the procedure process & who brought the case to the house but as one of your constituents I would like to know what were YOUR aims and objectives of your actions in my name. What do you see as your ultimate goal and what benefits it will offer the people who voted for you. Thanks

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: