The Coalition is refusing to publish a report into the risks of NHS Reform. What have they got to hide?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1n2IrS0uZ
Mr. Cameron has found himself in an uncomfortable and untenable spot. This is what happens when you are determined to force through goals that the vast majority of people, professionally and personally, oppose. And not without good reason.
To be fair, the current blueprint for changes within the NHS aren't actually Cameron's plans at all but were first mooted when his political grandmother, Margaret Thatcher, was in power.
They were subsequently licked into shape by Tony Blair's champagne-socialist cabinet - shame, shame on him - but not implemented. Nonetheless, Cameron's determination to push them through to their full and detrimental technicolour conclusion should not be underestimated.
The reformation of the NHS has been controversial from day one for the simple fact that when you strip away all the hyperbole and management-speak it amounts to one simple thing: a privatisation of the NHS.
If there's one thing we know for certain about Conservative behaviour, it is how they love to flog the family silver. It's their thing. Not for nothing are they known as the eBay of politics (well, in our house anyway).
Problem is, when they are done with their pillaging of our national stock, it can take decades before we even begin to grasp the full significance of their privatisation propensity.
If we have learned anything about David Cameron's style of governance it is this: if he doesn't like the advice he has been offered then he will simply ignore it - as he did with the whole raft of opponents to his Welfare Reform Bill.
I fear, greatly, that the Health and Social Care Bill will be rubber-stamped by MPs - and not least because of the degree of financial interests that our Honorable Members (sometimes its hard to say that without laughing) have a stake in.
At the last count, 31 Lords and 18 MP's have extremely lucrative interests in the health industry - including health providers such as BUPA, pharmaceuticals and consultancies.
It doesn't require great intellectual insight to see how their voting may be swayed by their personal priorities and how reforms, as set out, will directly benefit them.
I appreciate that it is entirely legal for our elected - and unelected - members to have financial investments aside from their roles as MPs, and as long as they list these in the parliamentary register then everything remains above board.
But come on: Legal it may be - in a system of rules that they created - but that does not always equate to moral. And certainly not on this occasion.