There are a range of stories in the Torygraph this morning, but my interest piqued after looking at my site stats this morning and noticed that there had been an unhealthy interest in one particular posting, Quangos: The Unseen Government of the UK, which I had published in May last year.
The aggressive slashing of the ever growing numbers of quangos and their spiralling costs has been Libertarian Party published policy from the time of our launch 18 months ago.
Suddenly Libertarian Party policy is becoming all the rage, as The Telegraph has told us:
The Telegraph journalist Ed West goes on to say:
Quite! However, the plans which are likely to come from Cameron and his Conservative policy makers are likely to make little difference to the quality of democracy, as the imperative on the Conservatives part to ensure the continuance of corporatist interests by deftly moving those quangos to corporate bodies are ably highlighted in a second Telegraph story with regards to NHS patient records.
And this is where the Conservative and Libertarian Party most definitely part company. It is clear from Cameron's plans that he still believes in big state ownership of everyone's personal records. By giving such a contract to corporatist partners such as Google or Microsoft he is saying that he believes that these records are his to sell on as he sees fit to commercial organisations. Nor would there be massive cost savings as he claims, it would merely be redirecting the costs from uncountable quangos to an even more unaccountable commercial body. But then, that would be easier to keep off the books, so perhaps they have learned something from Brown.
The Libertarian Party firmly believe that those medical records belong to the individuals to whom they correspond, not the government, and that if they are to go anywhere, then they are to go to the individuals concerned. This method works well in France, where every X-Ray, every note, every record is the patients' property to take to whichever medical service provider he/she wishes.
It is this very bureaucracy that keeps and maintains those medical records in a centralised fashion which is one of the major cost centres for the NHS.
There has already been major arguments in government over the planned access to be provided to NHS records by medical research companies without recourse to the individuals concerned, and the farming of those records by big pharma companies. To put those records into the hands of commercial organisations en mass, organisations that are not even based in the UK and are therefore out of the jurisdiction of any UK government is in our view criminal on the part of the Conservative planners.
As part of The Libertarian Party's planned reforms of the NHS we will see those records being returned to their rightful owners, the patients. There is also a provision in those LPUK reforms to allow GP's to store those records on behalf of their patients as GP's are given greater autonomy to create revenues for their surguries and clinics locally in a variety of other ways.
The Conservative plans today will demonstrate that Cameron is getting ever deeper into the corporatist world, his Nudging will produce less democracy in the UK not more, but the conservative spin machine will pound away relentlessly pulling the wool over your eyes in the same way that Labour have done for the past 12 years.
So beware Cameron and his plans, they are not in your best interests, but as always in the interests of the commercial organisations that entwine themselves with government. There is a world of difference between privatisation and corporatism, but what Cameron brings you with these proposals is most definitely corporatism, and he will bring this to you with a smile and kind words..
Political scientists use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations. At a popular level "corporatism" is used to mean the promotion of the interests of private business corporations in government over the interests of the public.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” said Benito Mussolini. He would have known, wouldn't he.
History should teach us much, and over the past 10 years we have seen so much history repeating itself it is now endemic, but essential to that is one vital truth, that truth is that the last people to realise that a fascist state has been created, are those who live within it..
UPDATE: 6/Jul/09
David Camerons Conservatives really have now lost the plot completely: Almost as if by magic,David Cameron has just held a press conference where he told the assembled press:
“it would be far too simplistic for me to stand here and announce some kind of ‘Bonfire of the Quangos.’ People have heard that kind of talk many times before, and seen little to show for it. Instead, we need a more sophisticated approach. Yes we need to reduce the number, size, scope and influence of quangos…”
Well here are another 17 quangos the Tories have just proposed:
1. Office of Tax Simplification
2. Office of Budget Responsibility
3. Free national financial advice service
4. ‘Sports Commission’ (Australian model)
5. Office for Civil Society
6. Social Investment Bank
7. Skills advisory service for service personnel
8. Service for families of departing armed forces personnel
9. Military inquest family advisory service
10. International Aid Watchdog
11. Innovative Projects Agency
12. National Foundation for STEM
13. HealthWatch
14. Defence Export Services Organisation
15. All Age Careers Service
16. Voluntary Action Lottery Fund
17. A ‘development agency for libraries’Source : Labour Party press office.
New quangos to interfere in almost every part of your life. An Office for Civil Society? This is a government takeover of everything and bringing it under State control. This is pure Communitarianism, a hybrid centre ground Fascism/Communism.. My political map, and my instincts are rarely wrong.
That is the reality of Cameron's conservatives. Ed West, the Telegraph journalist who wrote the original article about Cameron's patient record/google plans said this in a Tweet to me earlier today:
Very sinister, this Conservative Party-Google reacharound party.
I now hope that this latest move by Cameron is sinister enough to get journalists everywhere writing about it.
15 comments:
I think this enters some dangerous territory. While I do not agree with the use of large companies becoming involved, this is little more than a rumour.
At the end of the day there are only two ways to do this: The records are central and access is granted to any medical practitioner that needs them, or the individual.
If the individual joins a new GP, then the old one sends all the records to the new one surely?
I would just add the old saying, first one to mention the Nazis loses.
Who gets to choose which company they go to? If its me and the field is open (there is a free market) then this is a great idea.
I've read about studies where online access to health records controlled by the individual is beneficial for medical outcomes.
I wouldn't have an issue with say, my GP publishing my records *(securely) at mygp.com/~sjgibbs/records.rdf and a private scanning company publishing a bit more over at getscanned.com/~sgibbs14236/abitmoredata.rdf.
As long as I'm able to a) choose the provider b) choose how technically the data moves about c) do what the hell I like with it (including deleting it, sharing it, and using it via third party tools) then I don't give a stuff if getscanned.com is a Microsoft product, a Google one, or run by some charity.
This is the kind of thing Web 3.0 was coined for.
How about just give the records to you and you decide what to do with them.
People just dont get it. You own you, not the government. You own your personal information, not the government.
Yes, this is dangerous ground. If people want every aspect of their lives decided for them by real life 1984 style quangos, then Cameron is the man to take them there.
That's precisely what David Cameron proposes to do, as far as I can tell. Certainly its what I advocated above.
This article is certainly closer to what I'd like to see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6644075.ece
In practice, people will not want to use paper or USB sticks to do this task, they'll want tools and on-line applications are the best way to deliver data management tools that we've ever seen.
If LPUK aren't ready to support a free market in data processing platforms for health data and gain the benefits of competition to be the most secure and easy to use then what is the LPUK for?
Here's one of the possibilities, it's been around for some time now:
http://www.healthecard.co.uk/
It's simple really. We go into the hospital/surgery, find our medical records, and take them home. They are ours, we've even paid for their production; if we want them we take them.
Then you start to deal with getting the electronic records deleted (a wee bit more tricky).
One central database/one national owner is not necessary, just agreement on data storage/interchange standards (if you want to be included in stats that is).
Now to those fascists...
"First one to mention the Nazis loses" ~ Kevin Boatang
Nope. First person to get the popular media to acknowledge that our government have been and are employing the methods of fascists AND terrorists gets the Victoria Cross for standing up to the sick murdering bastards.
Where to start, really.
@Kevin. False dichotomy.
The records can be held centrally, in a plurality of national or regional providers (who can be private, public, NFP, mutuals, cooperatives etc), at your GP, or with the individual. Just because the data is held "centrally" (which is a cosy term for a state-run or private state-mandated monopoly) does not demand that any old "practitioner" must have access. Of course it is intended to be not for our benefit but because it is more convenient for the State to do so. Never a justification. It is not just about "where" but about who owns the data and who decides who uses it. There should be no automatic presumption of access. That results in selling data behind our backs to companies that will use the information at best for their private gain or at worse for our significant disadvantage.
A final point to Kevin: "I would just add the old saying, first one to mention the Nazis loses."
I am coming to the conclusion that this meme is part of a very long game by the Fabians to emasculate those who would expose them for what they truly are.
@sjgibbs
No, Cameron only appears to be doing this. If the State is deciding which company gets access or runs anything, then we, the individuals, are cut out of the loop. We cannot "fire" the provider personally (please, do NOT attempt to use "democracy" or "elections" as a means, it is not) and we do not select the provider or directly fund them, therefore we get a case of "third party payer problem". The Googles and Microsofts* will work to make the State happy, not 60million individuals who they know might cancel at any moment and go to a competitor. No, the State is a very different beast to keep on a leash.
The info would most likely be at the GP or a repository used by them. Any GP system would have to share, so system providers will come up with a protocol to do so (using JSON for example - no, not XML which is PANTS). In a Libertarian world, hospitals would not be under a central dictatorship so they too woudl have a plurality of systems, therefore being one of the better and more efficient ways to prevent lock in or some ossified proprietary format.
In all of this the Patient must own the data. They should have a permanent, universal, near absolute right to deny access to their records (except in the case of Sectioning and related when Informed Consent is compromised) and demand that any copies are removed from wherever they might end up, and to be treated as copyright and as such theft if copied or retained without express permission.
The Tories are becoming masters at pushing a confection. A meringue instead of the Portland Cement we expect.
* cannot program their way out of a wet paper bag. Goes for Accenture too - witness LSE's USELESS "TradElect" donkey.
There is more to say here than a comment permits, and its my third. So:
http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2009/07/06/how-the-health-system-should-work/
More on this from a non-political source:
http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2245476/tories-look-cloud-health
Though even the guardian gets to mentioning that the tories aren't looking to create a monopoly:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/06/cameron-health-google-microsoft
PS still no press release at http://lpuk.org/pages/press-releases.php You guys are obviously ashamed to have Thomas Burridge as a candidate? Or did you just forget?
@sjgibbs
The official press release will go up in line with our campaign strategy plan, along with a few other things at the same time.
Watch this space.
Ian, I would be amazed if any press release went up anywhere. Seeing as the LPUK site is the sole source of information about this party because no memebers receive emails telling them what on earth is going on and everything is run by a secret little group meetings in a pub, a press release might be an idea at some point.
The Nazi comment. Sorry, but this is a known phrase, it is not a truth. The point being that if you resort to bringing up Hitler to win the argument you have already lost.
The fact that no one gets that is quite amazing. Attack them for being fake, attack them for using certain economic methods, but do it without have to start shouting 'Nazi'.
"How about just give the records to you and you decide what to do with them"
You seriously want me to walk around with x-rays Ian? All I want is the legal ownership of my records, but practically they have to stay with my GP, it's just a fact of life.
May I also point out the hypocrisy being levelled? LPUK policy is that of schools being run by private companies using taxes allocated directly to parents to spend as they wish.
A very good idea.
However, that does involve the state, you know, granting control over education to the private sector. And then paying them public money to do so. Schools with private records on individuals.
Further Ian, as much as I respect you as a person, don't you dare tell me I don't get it.
Kevin: YOU are the FIRST to mention the NAZIS! Ian mentioned corporatism (a pretty clearly defined term and a part of our day-to-day reality). Fascism comes from the Italian "fascismo" which means bundle together, IE: cartelise.
I refer you to my earlier point; given your ire, directed at those using these terms - which is common amongst the public, media and politicians - in denial of patent facts about our society; the first person or group to successfully popularise this message is flatly heroic.
Correction: Fascism comes from the Italian ["fascio", via] "fascismo"
@Kevin: "granting control over education to the private sector"
No, to Parents. Currently parents and children are beholden to a de facto monopoly. Once you cut out the "third party payer"* and the parents are the customers, then the private companies, mutuals, teachers collectives etc will be beholden to the parents or, if they have the cojones, pitch their tent and live with the consequences of empty classrooms.
In an ideal world, people would pay for the education of their own kids and some donate voluntarily to the education of others less fortunate and as a result the tax bill would be £50billion lighter. We are not in an ideal world and the LPUK recognises that. It aims to balance freedom with obliterating monopolies, fiefdoms, Statism, central control etc. First step is to get the LEAs and Central Government out of the way.
* technically you change it, but for the least worst alternative in the timeframe available.
Gandhi. Have you read the previous series of articles to this one? A constant stream of attacks about obscure political labels and....oh look, Hitler.
And well done, you copied a definition and pasted it. Yes, I am fully aware of the origins of fascism thank you.
@Roger. "No, to Parents.", do you pride yourself on hair splitting?
Yes, the parents will have the power (to make this clear, again, I am in favour of this approach in education), but in no way does that alter the plain as day fact that the school will be run by a company.
And yes it is ire. Ire that such an attack has been put on this 'blog' by the leader of this party concerning a not even submitted suggestion in a report that hasn't even been put forward for policy by the opposition party.
It is a total non-issue! No, this blog does not represent party policy, but I can assure you that by writing such articles Ian would be taken apart in a debate. Right or wrong simply doesn't come into it, if you wish us to be a serious entity then you need to be serious in your public output.
Seeing as there hasn't been a press release since May (lo and behold one goes up last night) this blog is the public face.
wow nice article ,done well
Bathmate
really wonderful blog...
Bathmate
Post a Comment