No More Mr Nice Guy

For too long the media have focused on one side of the story when it comes to the debate about medication. Nice has been portrayed as a vicious, uncaring watchdog seeking to penalise those that require certain medications. That some of this criticism seems to emanate from various pharmaceutical concerns, barely seems worth mentioning. Finally, today's Observer goes some way to addressing this gross distortion and, in turn, reveals the real criminals in the drugs industry.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins has finally spoken out about the media frenzy surrounding Nice, and what he says makes an awful lot of sense. Sure, the drug companies will be infuriated (and no doubt up their propaganda campaigns), but the truth is for all to see. Drugs companies are overcharging the NHS in order to protect their profits. This needs to stop. If things continue in this fashion, the NHS will be bled dry and the way will be clear for a privatised system somewhat like the one in the US. Free healthcare for all will become a curiosity of the past. Men, women and children will die as a result of a privatised system. Dramatic? Maybe. But there is no doubt that large sections of society will be severely affected by such a change.

Below is a short extract:

The drugs industry is overpricing vital new medicines to boost its profits, the chair of the health watchdog Nice warns today in an explosive intervention into the debate over NHS rationing.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins spoke out after critics last week accused the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) of 'barbarism' for refusing to approve expensive new kidney drugs for NHS use, on the grounds that they were not cost-effective.

In an outspoken interview with The Observer, he warned of 'perverse incentives' to hike the prices of new drugs - including linking the pay of pharmaceutical company executives to their firm's share price, which in turn relied on keeping profits healthy. Traditionally some companies charged what they thought they could get away with, he said. 'We are told we are being mean all the time, but what nobody mentions is why the drugs are so expensive.'

Kidney cancer drugs could be produced for about a tenth of their current cost, Rawlins said. While developing such medicines from scratch added to these costs, as did some 'unnecessary' bureaucracy around clinical trials which should be scrapped, he said that was not the whole story. 'Part of the problem is that the pharmaceutical industry is looking at a very bad period in the future because a lot of their big earners are going off patent [allowing rivals to make cheaper versions], and many companies are looking at a 30 or 40 per cent reduction in the next five years unless they come up with new drugs,' he said. 'And so part of the cost is cushioning against that. The other thing, of course, is that the share price is very important to a pharmaceutical company.'

Passport Fiasco - Another Privatised Cock-up

There has been a lot of talk in the media about the recent passport fiasco. There have been a lot of attacks on the government for incompetence and carelessness in the face of the latest security breach. However, one thing that hasn't been made clear is that this would have happened under any government, Tory, Lib Dem or Labour. The root cause of the problem is the rise of privatisation within the public sector, for the real incompetents were the private security company contracted out to deliver the passports, as is revealed in some reports:

A firm was subcontracted to deliver them from 3M Security Printing & Systems in Chadderton to RAF Northolt.

Yes, another cock-up due to the subcontracting out of work previously carried out by state agencies. And this is where the Tories claims ring hollow. The policy of contracting out such work would have been done under the Tories as they would see no need for the state to be involved in such activities when the private sector does it 'better' [ahem].

The government must take the blame for this fiasco, but not in the way the Tories would want. They must take the blame for following the policies of the Tory party and contracting out as many activities as they possibly can. It is the culture of privatisation that is to blame, a culture that has flourished under Labour and the infatuation with Tory-style policies. As long as the main parties continue to support a policy of privatisation, incidents like this will continue to happen and the opponents will continue to attack the government (whether Tory or Labour) when they know it would be no different under their watch.

Privatisation of Welfare Green Lit by Labour

So, you thought that the Labour party represented a left-wing constituency did you? Of course not, that boat has long since sailed east. Whilst the new crackdown on those that claim welfare (by those that claim thousands to furnish their second homes) is deeply troubling, the willingness to open welfare up to the private sector is even more worrying. What was once the preserve of the state has now, like many other aspects of British life in the past ten years, been handed over to those whose primary concern is profit. How long before the NHS is completely handed over to corporate Britain (it's half way there already)? From The Times:

Radical changes to the welfare state, requiring claimants to look for work in order to continue receiving benefit, will be announced by the Government on Monday.

James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has been given the go-ahead by Gordon Brown to implement all the main proposals of the Freud report, which was originally commissioned by Tony Blair and which will be seen as heralding a significant privatisation of the welfare system.

The Times revealed two weeks ago that the proposals include plans to force unemployed people to undertake community service in return for receiving benefit as a way of preventing them working in the “black economy”. But Mr Purnell, who will entrench his reputation as the Cabinet’s leading Blairite moderniser, will pave the way for massive involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the provision of welfare.

From being a sceptic over the Freud report during his last months as Chancellor, and opposing parts of it, Mr Brown has become an enthusiastic advocate and has given Mr Purnell full rein to implement it.

Under the plan, businesses could bid to run programmes including welfare-to-work schemes and projects to rehabilitate former offenders. Companies will be encouraged to come up with welfare solutions, rather than wait to be asked, a reversal of current rules which stipulate that the Government decides which services to put out to tender.

No doubt many claimants will be forced into jobs in order to get them off the books, rather than offered long-term solutions. A report produced last year looking into the welfare to work program in America made the following conclusion:

There are risks attached to the significant involvement of for-profit organisations. They are likely to follow profit maximisation strategies shaped by contract incentives and this may not necessarily deliver what is best for clients, especially for those with greater barriers. Moreover, if the entry of for-profits into local delivery systems displaces existing private and public infrastructure, then future capacity may be at risk when market conditions change and larger for-profits remove their capital to seek greater profits elsewhere.

Once again, the pooret in society will be kicked in the teeth as their concerns are overridden by the concerns of profit-making organisations who will put quick returns ahead of the interests of their clients. And some people call this government 'socialist'.

Democrats Slap Down Free Trade Agreement With Colombia.....For Now

Good news concerning relations between the world's two largest terrorist states:

The US House of Representatives has defied the White House and voted to indefinitely delay action on a free trade deal with Colombia.

President George W Bush sent the free trade agreement to Congress early this week, using a "fast-track" process which requires a vote within 90 days.

The House instead voted to eliminate that rule and suspend action.

Colombia's trade minister, Luis Guillermo Plata, said the vote did not mean the 2006 trade pact was dead.

Of course, this will dismay President Bush who describes Colombia as an 'important ally' (mainly due to the rising influence of Chávez et al). I have little doubt that this is little more than electioneering on the part of the Democrats who only really appear interested in tweaking the legislation a little before allowing it to pass. Having said that, it is a little hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of 'playing politics' when the Republicans have been playing politics with Iraq and the 'war on terror', leading to the deaths of thousands.

In terms of the legislation, Bush has claimed that it is vital as a rebuke to "dictators and demagogues" in Latin America (I can't actually name a single 'dictator' in the region, although rewind to the 70s when US hegemony in the region was in its pomp, and I can name numerous examples). Susan Schwab, the US's trade representative, spat her dummy out and said:

"The House Democratic leadership has now slapped around a major US ally.

"This is the Democratic leadership's version of foreign policy."

What, you mean a (vaguely) more ethical policy?? Surely slapping a major US ally is better to screwing one over (although Blair seemed pretty keen to receive the punishment). Anyway, I digress. If you want to find out why opposing this agreement is so important, either watch this slideshow I have produced (tambien en Español) or watch the following clip by War on Want. Colombia: Pinochet's Chile with a democratic facade.

Privatisation - A Socialist Plot

I seem to remember recently being upbraided for describing the current government as slightly to the right on the political spectrum. And then, I read this piece in today's Guardian and wondered how on earth anyone could seriously suggest we are living under a socialist government:

The prime minister has defended the accreditation of in-company qualifications after it was announced that staff at McDonald's could gain the equivalent of an A-level in burger bar management.

The fast food giant, Network Rail and the airline Flybe are the first three companies to win government approval to become an exam board.

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has approved a pilot "basic shift manager" course, which will train staff in everything they need to run a McDonald's outlet, from marketing to human resources and customer service skills.

The budget airline Flybe will start piloting their "airline trainer programme" in the summer, which will cover everything from engineering to cabin crew training.

And so the corporate take-over of our education system continues at a fearless pace. Privatisation and socialism eh? How anyone could suggest that this country is a socialist enclave and yet keep a straight face is beyond me.

Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells - A Lesson About Privatisation

If the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells debacle has taught us anything, it is that creeping privatisation of the NHS (in some cases, not even 'creeping') is to be fought at all costs. If cleaning wasn't contracted out to cleaning companies who are not held to account for their actions, this disaster would never have happened (a disaster close to home, as I live in the area and have friends that work there - yes, I live in Tory land, now you know why I am so militant). It is time for cleaners to be brought under the control of the hospital itself rather than a cleaning company that's primary concern is profit, not the health of patients.