Resign !
This morning's Times alleges that "A secret meeting has been held by ministers and Labour party officials to work out ways of closing hospitals without jeopardising key marginal seats."
Leaked emails sent to the Times and to the BBC show that a meeting attended by Patricia Hewitt and government advisers to discuss the impact of hospital closures was also attended by Hazel Blears, Chairman of the Labour party and, at Hazel Blear's request, by a Labour party representative.
If this is true, Ms Hewitt and Ms Blears must provide the House of Commons with the minutes of the meeting and explain to parliament why they proposed and agreed respectively that a Labour party representative should be present. Unless they can demonstrate that party political considerations have not been allowed to change health service plans drawn up on medical grounds, Patricia Hewitt and Hazel Blears should resign from the government.
The BBC comprehensively missed the point this lunchtime, over the suggestion that one marginal seat which might be affected by a hospital closure is a Lib/Dem-held constituency, Rochdale. A BBC correspondent appeared to suggest that this was OK as it might help the Lib/Dem MP to hold his seat if the Labour party closed his local hospital.
Have the Beeb completely lost their marbles ? Never mind the MP, what about health care for his constituents ?
How will residents of West Cumbria feel if it turns out that decisions about which services stay at the West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven and which go to Carlisle or Barrow were being made not on the basis of medical advice but on what is best for the re-election prospects of Jamie Reed, Eric Martlew, and John Hutton ?
How will residents of Hatfield and St Albans feel if it turns out that the fate of the proposed new super-hospital in Hatfield, revealed a couple of days ago to be under threat - might be decided not on the basis of clinical need but on the basis that healthcare in a marginal Labour seat is more important than in seats Labour has already lost ?
It is impossible to totally eliminate the possibility that politicans are taking decisions on considerations of party advantage instead of the best interests of society as a whole. However, it is perfectly possible to impose a responsibility on holders of public office to put factors affecting the whole of society, such as medical need, above party politics. And it has long been accepted in local government, both under the new regime imposed by Labour and under previous systems, that councillors who fail to do so can be punished.
If Patricia Hewitt and Hazel Blears were councillors instead of ministers, there would be enough evidence to justify referring them to the Standards Board for England which their own government set up. There is at least a case to answer that they have committed the same broad category of political manipulation for which a District Auditor "surcharged" (e.g. fined) Dame Shirley Porter and some of her fellow Westminster councillors millions of pounds.
Unless they can explain themselves, Hewitt and Blears should go.
Leaked emails sent to the Times and to the BBC show that a meeting attended by Patricia Hewitt and government advisers to discuss the impact of hospital closures was also attended by Hazel Blears, Chairman of the Labour party and, at Hazel Blear's request, by a Labour party representative.
If this is true, Ms Hewitt and Ms Blears must provide the House of Commons with the minutes of the meeting and explain to parliament why they proposed and agreed respectively that a Labour party representative should be present. Unless they can demonstrate that party political considerations have not been allowed to change health service plans drawn up on medical grounds, Patricia Hewitt and Hazel Blears should resign from the government.
The BBC comprehensively missed the point this lunchtime, over the suggestion that one marginal seat which might be affected by a hospital closure is a Lib/Dem-held constituency, Rochdale. A BBC correspondent appeared to suggest that this was OK as it might help the Lib/Dem MP to hold his seat if the Labour party closed his local hospital.
Have the Beeb completely lost their marbles ? Never mind the MP, what about health care for his constituents ?
How will residents of West Cumbria feel if it turns out that decisions about which services stay at the West Cumberland Hospital in Whitehaven and which go to Carlisle or Barrow were being made not on the basis of medical advice but on what is best for the re-election prospects of Jamie Reed, Eric Martlew, and John Hutton ?
How will residents of Hatfield and St Albans feel if it turns out that the fate of the proposed new super-hospital in Hatfield, revealed a couple of days ago to be under threat - might be decided not on the basis of clinical need but on the basis that healthcare in a marginal Labour seat is more important than in seats Labour has already lost ?
It is impossible to totally eliminate the possibility that politicans are taking decisions on considerations of party advantage instead of the best interests of society as a whole. However, it is perfectly possible to impose a responsibility on holders of public office to put factors affecting the whole of society, such as medical need, above party politics. And it has long been accepted in local government, both under the new regime imposed by Labour and under previous systems, that councillors who fail to do so can be punished.
If Patricia Hewitt and Hazel Blears were councillors instead of ministers, there would be enough evidence to justify referring them to the Standards Board for England which their own government set up. There is at least a case to answer that they have committed the same broad category of political manipulation for which a District Auditor "surcharged" (e.g. fined) Dame Shirley Porter and some of her fellow Westminster councillors millions of pounds.
Unless they can explain themselves, Hewitt and Blears should go.
Comments