NHS, Big Society & Lobbying

Back in August Eric Pickles, the Local Government secretary, said he wanted to ban the practice of “Government lobbying Government” because it was “corrosive and wasteful”.

How far has he got with that? Well we have seen the Bonfire of Quangos, but has it got rid of the lobby groups that lurk behind them. And what of government departments, who have a multitude of lobbying companies set up as charities to press their opinions on ministers and political parties.

The NHS for instance. I have been looking at one such ‘Charity’ called the NHS Confederation. It claims to have 95% of NHS organisations as members.

Its accounts for 2008/2009 show that it has not received a single penny piece in voluntary income, yet it spent £26,110,000 on Influencing, Supporting Leaders and ‘promoting’ excellence.

This ‘Charity’ states that the aims of the charity are:

The NHS Confederation is the independent membership body for the full range of organisations that make up the modern NHS.
We help our members improve health and patient care, by:
• Influencing policy, implementation and the public debate
• Supporting leaders through networking, sharing information and learning
• Promoting excellence in employment

This ‘Charity’ states that its strategy includes:

To continue our role meeting and respecting the common purpose of NHS management.

To be the authoritative voice for policy and decision makers, the media, and other players in the policy debate on all NHS issues delivering the perspective of our members.

That, is PR lobbying. This is effectively the recycling of NHS cash for the purposes of getting the EU/Common Purpose/Big Society message in line in all areas of the NHS and Government.

NHS Confederation is not a charity, it is a lobbying firm for which it charges its NHS members, it is a training firm for which it charges the NHS, it is an employment consultancy for which it charges the NHS and it is a publishing company for which it earns £92,000 and earns a great deal more in advertising revenue (£259,000) which it lists as voluntary income on activities.

Reading between the lines, the lines that talk about remuneration, there is this snippet which leads me to believe that it was once part of the NHS or the DoH, and was hived off to be hidden off book.

All staff are employed by the charity, with the exception of those staff that transferred from the Department of Health under TUPE legislation and who are employed directly by The NHS Confederation (Employers) Company Ltd.

Oh, and lets not forget, NHS money is your money, your tax money.

This charity employs 215 people, with the top level earnings way up there with bankers salaries, with 1 person on £210,000-£219,999, one on £160,000-£169,999 and two people on £140,000-£149,999.

Seems charity begins at home eh.

You can view their last annual accounts here, and their Summary Information Return here.

I view it as an abuse of the word Charity, as any organisation that lives off the taxpayer teat directly or indirectly is not a charity, its a quango, but you decide. Is this a charity that should enjoy special tax status, or is it simply a PR/Trading firm that has the NHS as its only clientèle and should be paying tax like any other firm, or should it and its nefarious promotion of communitarianism be swept away and the NHS banned from lobbying.

This is only 1 such organisation. You the public never see them, never hear about them, but by Christ you are paying for them. There are literally thousands of ‘charities’ of this nature who do nothing useful, who produce nothing, but are responsible for sucking billions out of the overall government budgets to promote the Fabian/Communitarian/Big Society message set up over the past 15 years.

UPDATE:

For those of you who like to dig around in the semi hidden depths of communitarian government, here is another strange organisation. Set up to give the impression its a government department yet this is a private Ltd company, produces nothing, contributes nothing, yet takes its entire living from selling its ‘services’ to government.

Office For Public Management Ltd

Bills itself as:

an independent centre for the development of public services:
improvement, leadership development and research

Its just oozing Fabian doublespeak… brought to my attention because they have been crawling all over this website.

UPDATE to the UPDATE: 29/10/10

Well, there were 821 of you who read this article yesterday, from 552 unique hosts, with a huge number coming from the NHS N3 network, the NHS Confederation, and a plethora of NHS trusts, ‘charities’, NHS funded pressure organisations, NHS dependent consultancy, PR & training companies, hospitals and hospices.

That not one person left a comment to defend the NHS Confederation speaks volumes.

It is near criminal that we now live in such a politically correct and process driven world, where the process and targets are more important than the service being delivered, and the re-education and indoctrination of those who deliver those services has taken priority with the funds which taxpayers have been forced to make available for their healthcare.

The total NHS budget rose from £65.4bn in 2002-3 to £105.6bn in 2007-8. This year it will be nearly £114bn, yet there is no significant overall improvement at the point of delivery, a situation that is not the fault of the doctors, nurses and clinical staff. No, most of that massive increase has gone into shady PFI schemes, cuckoo organisations and the politicisation of the NHS, which now delivers a bigger dose of political correctness than healthcare.

There is nearly as much money given by the NHS and DoH to thousands of networked fake charities such as Ash, Alcohol Concern, Brake et al to preach their righteousness, to tell us how we should live, eat, imbibe or smoke and to regulate our lives, than the NHS puts into drugs for the chronically sick.

Unfortunately, it will be the same decision makers who will decide that it will be those essential medical staff such as doctors, nurses and clinicians that will be losing their jobs because of the necessary budget cuts in order to make a political point. When those cuts come, just remember the £26m that this organisation alone spent lobbying last year, and the £tens of billions that hundreds of organisations like them spend annually, sucking the life out of the NHS budget. It is the price that those who deliver those essential front line services will now pay, and the public suffer, and all for a political ideal.

They call it progressive politics, this regulation, correctness, training, re-education, targets and process, that pervades not just the NHS but all public services including local authorities, the police and judiciary, but in reality it is just another gravy train on the tracks of Fabian Communitarianism, Communism with a smiley face.

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Main Page and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to NHS, Big Society & Lobbying

  1. Pingback: NHS, Big Society & Lobbying | The Albion Alliance presents

  2. Pingback: So Government Does Not Lobby Government Then? | The Albion Alliance presents

  3. Rich Crowe says:

    I’d like to know the specific object(s) of the NHS Confederation’s lobbying.

  4. Pingback: NHS, Big Society & Lobbying | Centurean2′s Weblog

  5. Vicky says:

    Public private finance initiative-PPP

    Public-Private Partnerships and Home-Grown “Soft” Fascism

    We should see from the preceding section that public-private partnerships do not fit into the conceptual model of free enterprise. A free society has no need for them and should shun them as illicit, prosperity-draining sources of collusion, corruption and theft. When they appear, we should be vigilant to the possibility—probability—that something has gone badly wrong even if the language of free enterprise is still used. Let us pass the reins of the argument into Joan Veon’s hands, for she has done as much as anyone to document the specifically fascist tendency at work here. Veon explains:

    A public-private partnership will always have as its goal a business-making venture that requires some form of “governance.” The question is, since the players will vary in experience and wealth, who has the most power? We know from life itself that whoever has the most money has the power. For example, when a public-private partnership is comprised of governments such as the County Department of Environmental Initiatives, the State Department of Environmental Resources; a number of private entities such as a land trust (foundation) and the Nature Conservancy (nonprofit); along with a corporation such as Black and Decker, the players with the most money control the partnership. In this case, it would be the Nature Conservancy with assets of over $1 billion, and Black and Decker Corporation with a capitalization of $1.6 billion. Representative government loses.

    This system is fascist since it involves corporations and governments working together to make policy; it is soft fascist because (due to the lack of genuine education) it is not overtly totalitarian. Tyrannical controls are barely needed, because among the mind-controlled workers and future workers there is little resistance. Most go along, fearing unemployment. After all, as George Orwell o­nce observed, “Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well-trained dog is the o­ne that turns his somersault when there is no whip.” Soft fascism thus employs behavior modification rather than obvious acts of tyranny. It is guided by an incentive system rather than overt acts of coercion: operant conditioning, a product of several decades of behavioral psychology to which the classical fascists were not privy. Thus for much of the population, there is no whip. Those who do not turn their somersaults—perhaps out of a realization that their choices have been artificially reduced—are marginalized and eventually able to find o­nly menial jobs. Lack of resources renders them effectively helpless—their punishment for nonconformity, in the behavioral psychologist’s sense. The “system” is effectively insulated against their criticisms, which as Orwell also observed, will not be read in places where they threaten the governing class. This class will have the Platonist philosopher-kings at the helm, overseeing public-private partnerships involving big government, big business, big foundations, with the full backing of the mainstream media, approximately 90 percent of which is owned by a half-dozen huge corporations. This explains why you will not encounter criticisms of public-private partnerships or of the idea of sustainable development in any mainstream media outlet today.

    Who’d have thought it?

    On 20 June 1978, Sir Geoffrey Howe [a Fabian], Member of Parliament and spokesman o­n economic issues for Britain’s then-opposition Conservative Party, delivered a speech o­n the problem of blighted inner-city neighborhoods…. Sir Geoffrey … suggested that many, perhaps most, of the problems experienced by depressed neighborhoods in central cities were due to the erection of bureaucratic, tax, and other obstacles by the very governments that were seeking to revive these areas…. He went to lay out a radical solution, to which he gave the name ‘Enterprise Zones.’ Within these zones, he said, everything possible should be done to maximize economic freedom…. By so doing, he argued, a process of economic and social experimentation would be set in motion that would restore inner cities to their former role as centers of creativity and opportunity

    http://www.libertygarden.com/gateway/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&topic_id=&page_id=35

    Soft or Hard Fascism is still Fascism!!

Comments are closed.