Julie Bailey’s ‘bulldozer’ award speaks volumes on Tory NHS strategy

Please share this widely.

Julie Bailey, the founder of “patients’ group” Cure the NHS (Cure), has won an award. She has been awarded the ‘Strategy’ prize by Westbourne, a communications agency.

The prize, part of Westbourne’s “Change Opinions Award” campaign, was awarded to Bailey for being ‘so Change Opinion’, specifically for ‘daring’

to take on the once great NHS, an institution which, until she shook it by the throat, was sacrosanct

and for being

a “human JCB” who won’t stop until she has bulldozed her way through a health service she says is in terminal decline.

Westbourne’s article about the award goes on to elaborate,

When considering this campaign, it is important to note who her opponent was. The NHS has one of the most professional communications departments, and spends vast amounts of money to keep it that way. The respect they command is highlighted by the fact that many politicians do not dare speak out against its practises (sic). Yet, Julie Bailey’s campaign managed to invert a well-established formula, taking on the caring, people-based aspect of the NHS, and highlighting its extremely hierarchical nature. The campaign became the voice of the people versus the medical practise (sic), a phenomenon that would not have happened before in Britain.

So, the NHS ‘was’ once great and is now in ‘terminal decline’, and we should all be on our knees thanking Ms Bailey for ‘highlighting’ it. Hmm. The article is evidently nonsensical (as well as evidencing a poor grasp of grammar and spelling, or perhaps an American influence). For one thing, politicians are certainly demonstrating no shyness about ‘daring’ to criticise the NHS.

The article also praises Ms Bailey for ‘taking on’, and overturning, the NHS’ ‘caring, people-based aspect’. How telling that comment is, we’ll see shortly.

To understand why this ‘award’ is so important – and not in the way I’m sure Ms Bailey would like to think – we need to take a closer look at Westbourne. First, a quick look at its client base, according to its website:


You can click on the image for a larger version, but the highlighted clients are:

  • Conservative Home, the self-styled ‘home of Conservatism’
  • the ‘New Schools Network‘, an organisation (yet another of those ‘charities’ devoted to Tory ideals) dedicated to spreading the ‘free school’ model that Education Secretary Michael Gove loves and is using to pave the way for companies to run schools for profit
  • Bain Capital – an asset-management firm controlling over $70 billion, which declares itself to be one of the world’s leading investors in the healthcare sector

So far, so Tory. But the Conservative party influence does not stop with the company’s clients. Most of the leading players in the company have deep, true-blue roots, including:

  • James Bethell, the 5th Baron Bethell and a former Tory ‘A-list’ parliamentary candidate with strong links to the US
  • Campbell Storey, who, as the site states, “worked at the heart of the Conservative policy process on two of the most radical sets of policies currently being implemented by the Coalition: welfare and police reform” and “was senior policy adviser for the shadow Work and Pensions and Transport teams”. Mr Storey’s fingerprints are therefore all over one of the most poisonous and loathsome departments of this government, the DWP – a search of this blog will soon show you the true nature of the DWP if you are in any doubt.

As if to put the cherry on top of the cake of its right-wing connections, the most recent entry in Westbourne’s website Twitter feed talks about how great it was to have two extreme neoliberals at its awards night:


The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) founded by Matthew Elliott, who describes himself as a ‘free-market libertarian’, is a group devoted to extreme low-tax policies and the slashing of state spending, and is a darling of the Conservative party. The TPA set up a ‘charity’ (yes, another of those), which then funnelled 90% of its first two years’ of gift-aided income straight back to the TPA. In other words, a group set up ostensibly for saving taxpayers’ money took a huge subsidy from…taxpayers’ funds. The Charity Commission carried out an investigation of the TPA and its ‘charity’ and warned them about their conduct – but the CC’s report on the matter seems to have mysteriously disappeared:


George Eustice MP is a Tory backbencher and failed UKIP candidate in the 1999 European elections, which says it all, really. He also used to work for Portland Communications, a company with very strong links to Westbourne. So Westbourne was thrilled to welcome two extreme right-wingers to its awards bash. As I said, the cherry on the cake, really.

And this is the company that is thrilled by Julie Bailey’s ‘bulldozer’ campaign smashing through the NHS to turn on its head the public impression that our NHS cares for us and is better than any private alternative.

This is the nearest yet to a public admission by the Right and its health lobbyists that Ms Bailey and her ‘Cure the NHS’ are smashing the NHS – and that they love her for it.

Westbourne is not the only organisation with strong links to right-wing health-privatisers that strongly supports Ms Bailey and Cure. Julia Manning, founder of yet another health ‘thinktank’, 2020health, has been a staunch supporter. As an excellent Social Investigations blog pointed out last week, Ms Manning has written to government ministers complaining about

bureaucratic obstructions to market access

and asking them to launch a ‘charm offensive’ to draw international corporations into the UK health sector. I’d recommend reading the SI article in full.

Julie Bailey’s ‘award’ from Westbourne has served to crystallise a situation that I’ve been highlighting now for some time: a supposedly pro-NHS group (one of a number of similar organisations) that is, in fact, serving to promote a toxic right-wing agenda – to destroy the public’s trust in, and affection for, this country’s greatest institution (and still the greatest, in spite of Westbourne’s dismissive summation and the government’s relentless emaciation through cash-starvation and the cutting of numbers).

I’d love to think that Ms Bailey is just a well-intentioned dupe being exploited for this purpose. But the evidence suggests otherwise. One of her favourite dismissive categorisations of any dissenters is to write them off as ‘Labour activists’. She was at it again just today:


And this is not a new tack. Here are just a couple of other examples from her Twitter feed:



So it would hardly be surprising if you were to conclude that Ms Bailey is fully aware of the impact of her ‘campaign’, for all her protestations that she only wants to ‘cure’ the NHS.

But whether wittingly or no, it’s really beyond question to the objective observer that she, Cure and other similar groups are the darlings of the Right for one reason only – that they are a useful, easy, convenient weapon in the hands of those who are ideologically and/or venally committed to the end of the NHS.

It’s essential that the truth gets out, and that the few in the media who are prepared to admit the truth start to broadcast it, to neutralise and then counteract the prevailing, corrosive narrative being cynically pedalled by politicians and media.


  1. Reblogged this on Grannie's Last Mix and commented:
    Great expose from the Skwawkbox blog. This should be headline news in the mainstream media but something tells me the likes of the BBC who’ve courted Ms Bailey and presented her as a righteous heroine won’t be featuring this story. All the more reason for bloggers to give it as much exposure as possible. PLEASE SHARE EVERYWHERE.
    The involvement of Portland Trust is interesting since David Freud once worked for them and is still a trustee. They certainly are all in it together.

      1. It isn’t about courage. It’s business; the business of privatising the NHS.
        And most people seem oblivious as to what’s really going on.

  2. What an irony we have here.
    While this diss the NHS in support of the back door (but increasingly front door) privatisation agenda gathers pace, supported by the media (wittingly or unwittingly, after all NHS stories are easy journalism) – these forces need the service to more or less continues on the ground. Step forward the thousands of staff who believe in the founding principles of the NHS (many of whom joined it because of that) to continue working their butts off to keep good outcomes going for their fellow citizens, the patients. I’m one of them. I can’t work out whether I’m a hero or a bloody idiot!

  3. No need to lose sleep about what the end game is……..here it is in all it’s gory detail. Thanks Steve, Maybe this should be posted on the unsuspecting CUREnhs groups whose members will think it’s wonderful JB has been awared this award and not think to investigate those who have given it.

  4. This definitely stinks of Common Purpose, it sounds very much like their tactics. Its a while ago now but I read of a certain Julia Middleton being offered over eighty grand by a certain Tory minister for turning public opinion. She now heads some dept for Common Purpose. It’s twisted and it stinks.

      1. Hello there
        I first heard of it about 2 years ago while doing some research on the EU. The name seemed to pop up also when I was trying to research local names and companies connected to the financial crisis. It led me to the UK Column free press. There is a lot of information out there including links to the NHS North Staffs, Members meetings etc. All I can say is, type Julia Middleton into your search engine and see what it comes up with, that name combined with Francis Maude MP, then follow the links there are hundreds of them, one day I had 40 pages open just following one link. Councils pay thousands of pounds for Councillors to attend seminars. Also certain members of the public attend. There is a hell of a lot of info and I suppose it’s up to the individual how they see it. But if public opinion is against something an individual might start by word of mouth first of all, to plant seeds of doubt in a few minds, with stories or allegations debunking facts etc. They get people together with a common purpose to change public thinking usually to the governments benefit. Read what you can and make your own mind up, some of it may be conspiracy maybe 5%, but a hell of a lot of it makes a lot of sense and when you start to talk about it, people who are worried start coming out with the conspiracy theory remarks. Sorry I have to go, Quacks appointment and I don’t think my hands could take much more typing today Arthritis very painful for some reason Morphine doesn’t seem to be working either. Good Luck friend.

      2. According to one Common Purpose “graduate” who spoke to the BBC, Common Purpose’s activities seem innocent enough: delegates attend a week-long residential course, where the emphasis is on personal development and making new contacts.
        She said delegates were encouraged to identify their strengths and weaknesses and were taken on outings to a psychiatric hospital, a prison, a local tenants’ association and the City.
        But former naval officer Brian Gerrish, who leads a campaign against Common Purpose, says: “It’s a secret society for careerists. The key point is that the networking is done out of sight of the general public.
        “If you actually look at the documented evidence as to what Common Purpose is doing, they are clearly not just a training provider. They are operating a highly political agenda, which is to create new chosen leaders in society.”
        The conspiracy theorists think Common Purpose is trying take over the world. They believe it is shaping people to work to its hidden agenda of promoting a European super-state, forcing diversity on British society, and imposing political correctness.

        Common Purpose organisers do not deny trying to identify future leaders, but they say their agenda is merely to open up the potential for success to a more diverse range of people.
        And the organisation’s website says: “We are always balanced and owe no historical or other allegiance to any other group.”
        People we have spoken to who have been on Common Purpose courses are frankly perplexed at the accusation that it is all about advancing a European super-state.

  5. Steve, I’ve long thought you were big into conspiracy theories but this absolutely nails it. You’re over-stretching your credibility here by a country mile.

    The singular problem you have, as all conspiracy theorists have, is circular reasoning. You start with a notion that the Tories are hell-bent on killing the NHS off, then find evidence to prove the theory. If you applied the same circular reasoning to the notion that the Tories are not actually hell-bent on killing the NHS off, you can easily find as much information on this, much more in fact. However, you ignore this, as your starting point discounts this from the outset.

    I have no doubt the Tories wish to increase private companies in the NHS, but let’s not forget that the previous Labour government started that and welcomed that.

    Simple question. How many people are in on the deception? To ring true is requires MPs, the media, private companies, charities, the supporting cast runs into the thousands, all of whom have to sing from the same hymn sheet, with nobody breaking rank and everyone staying the course. It just isn’t possible, which is why your conspiracy theory can’t and doesn’t hold water.

    I will of course not change your mind, neither would I want to, it amuses me. I will not change any of your followers minds as who is more foolish, the fool, or the fools that follow the fool.

    This is what I love about politics at the edge of the spectrum, it’s like religion, you can’t kill a belief with reason, as reason doesn’t apply, just blind faith that the conspiracy is true.

    1. Oh dear Chubby, you just come across as malevolent. I’m sure it’s not a false impression.

      1. I’m going to assume you’re referring to me as Chubby John? Not sure why. I have no desire to inflict evil on anyone, how you can suggest
        that I’m not all together sure. A truly strange
        comment. I simply disagree with the narrative that there is a huge, complex network of people that are conspiring to rid us of the NHS.

    2. Your introductory sentence is a Straw Man ( a logical fallacy, if you didn’t know) Therefore every deduction following it must be false.
      I out you as the Incredible Hulk in his green phase unable to think as an intellectual, shouting at a world he can’t understand.

      1. It is not a Strawman argument, it’s my opinion. You are clearly therefore talking bollocks. You out me as the Hulk? Wow, I haven’t heard that since school, bravo [claps slowly], did you think that up on your own? Bless.

    3. David, you’re singularly ill-informed and therefore jump to all the wrong conclusions. It’s *on record* that health lobbyists and media work together to steer public opinion on health privatisation issues, as you’ll find out if you bother searching my blog for ‘orchestrate’. Many Tory MPs are so close to private interests, in health and other areas, as to merit the term ‘in the pocket – many even own substantial holdings in, or are on the board of, private heath companies.

      It’s anything but a stretch. Your naivety would be almost touching if you weren’t so noxious about it. Actually, scratch that. Since it’s wilful blindness, it doesn’t deserve any sympathy.

      1. Of course lobbyists use the media, hardly groundbreaking. Lobbyists in general have more influence than we’d all like. I would count union influence in the same vein truth told.

        I don’t desire your sympathy, or anyone else’s. Every single conspiracy theorist retorts with the
        same “naive” or “blind” as though the theorist is the enlightened one, try something new, balance would be a great start.

        Noxious? I think given the accusations you make on this blog the irony of you calling me noxious is lost on you.

      2. Not just lobbyists, owners and directors of health companies. And ‘using the media’ is not the same as ‘orchestrating’ with the Telegraph.

        There is none so blind…

    4. Sir, the main thrust of your argument is that of ‘truth by consensus’ – it is a very poor tool for determining the veracity of a thesis or supposition. Your comments please.

    5. Dave. From what I have observed, most of the activity in the press etc is generated by a very small number of people who are networking very effectively, and who re-enforce each others beliefs. This does include a small number of MPs and some “trusted” journalists, https://twitter.com/KayFSheldon/status/352479501344714753 this tiny exchange gives a flavour of how the desired behaviour is praised and encouraged. There are many more similar examples > but it is more complex than that. So many papers have tied themselves into a story that does not bear close inspection – It takes huge courage to break out from the herd. and the implications of having got something this important so seriously wrong is understandably alarming to many people.

      1. Conspiracies or not, I am of the profound opinion this only reinforces my belief that the coalition is hell bent on the survival of the fittest, by using eugenics to get rid of the elderly, disabled, young, homeless, and the poor, and they will use any damning ploy to enhance their genocidal policies. Even to using anyone or anything to kill off longstanding institutions that were set up to help those whom they have no regard whatsoever. Mark my words!

      2. Diana,

        I agree up to a point – there do seem to be parts of the widely accepted narrative around North Staffs/Morecambe Bay/CQC which are open to question, and I think that in some cases the press have been guilty of accepting claims made by campaign groups and others with less noble intentions at face value without applying due diligence.

        But I don’t see anything untowards in the Twitter exchange which you linked to. Aside from the issue of the “covered up” report, there were obvious serious failings within the CQC and it’s right that hard questions are being asked of them, and some of those individuals involved have genuine grievances.

        Nor is it particularly surprising or shocking to see people who share strong views on a particular issue reinforcing each others beliefs and praising those who they perceive as furthering their cause – you will see this on pretty much any issue.

      3. perhaps also worth taking a look at this http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhealth/uc119-iii/uc11901.htm to see what the questioning from the approved MPs looks like in practice. There are many other – stronger examples – What you are looking at is lots of questions, over time, based on very questionable assumptions. Each question in isolation may look harmless, but the effect is cumulative. You also need to think about the important questions that are NOT being asked.

    6. Dave,

      It is unfair and unreasonable to portray the concerns which Steve and many more of us have as a “conspiracy theory”. As you admit, the Tories are perfectly open about the fact that they want to increase private provision within the NHS. It also can’t be doubted that there is a substantial body of opinion within the Conservative party (possibly including the current Health Secretary) which supports wholesale privatisation of the NHS itself or its replacement with some kind of insurance based system, that they have support in certain sections of the media, and that private healthcare providers and right wing think tanks are strongly pushing for this in the background. That’s not a conspiracy in the way you mean, it’s politics. And it doesn’t require the kind of mass collusion and closing of ranks which you suggest. There are certainly plenty of people speaking out against it.

      Of course you do make a fair point that this was started by the last Labour government, so much as Andy Burnham seems to be saying the right things at the moment I’m not sure how much we can really trust them on this.

  6. Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
    A. J. Liebling

  7. Just seen this. Any idea what it means?

    NHS Complaint ‏@NHSComplaint 5h
    @KayFSheldon next few weeks I will provide @curethenhs a system to help them monitor hospitals and care properly because there is none.
    Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite More
    12:56 AM – 3 Jul 13 · Details
    Julie Bailey ‏@curetheNHS 3h
    @NHSComplaint @KayFSheldon we cannot rely on those that are paid to do it, therefore we need to do it ourselves
    Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More

    Sounds a bit ominous.

  8. CTNHSs agenda may be a bit muddled at times but destruction is part of it. After all, they have had ample time to look round Stafford Hospital and find that it is doing a jolly good job now (they haven’t), claim victory for improved standards (however much that’s not exactly the whole story) and support retention of acute services in Mid/South Staffs. This they have signally failed to do despite being in a media position to do just that.
    They have made it much harder to defend local services than it needed to have been – it’s all very much up in the air despite “Support Stafford Hospital” playing a blinder on flop-all resources. Given the history, it was always going to be a rear-guard action but the ambivalence of some GPs/the CCGs and the on-going anti feeling from CTNHS hasn’t helped. The efforts of interested persons outside the area, such as this blog, are therefore doubly welcome. Stafford now; a hospital near you soon I’m afraid.

  9. just saw Julia Manning on 5News tonight … not even attempting to deny the potential introduction of charging all those who don’t pay £5000 in ‘tax’ each year to see their GP. Of course the government’s first target is to make those largely mythical ‘foreign health tourists’ pay for NHS services, but the guy representing GPs was keen to point out where he and many others certainly see this new policy really going. All these NHS haters are in it together.

    1. Absolutely! So the coalition is boasting about lifting people ‘out of tax altogether’, then they’re going to charge them for GP visits for not paying tax?!

  10. “Dave Banner”, you make no sense. CTNHS are flogging a pernicious conspiracy theory with no basis. Steve on the other hand has done a lot of research and his narrative is coherent and makes perfect sense given the Tory view of the world. You really don’t address the issues, and that combined with your latest posts makes me think you’re malevolent. See nothing that makes me think differently.

    1. That’s as maybe John, but then I’m not defending CTNHS with regards this blog, so I’m not entirely sure why you’re bringing that up. I’ve stated what I clearly think of Steve’s research, it lacks balance and starts from a pre-defined ideological standpoint, using circular reasoning techniques. So the narrative, whilst coherent, is flawed from the start unless your ideology is similar.

      Malevolent, adjective, having or showing a wish to do evil to others? I think you’d be hard-pressed to show any notion of that in my posts to John. I simply disagree with him, I’m expressing that opinion. If you engage in political debate then surely responses from objectors rather than sycophants adds something?

      I’d also suggest John that people that live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones, and you have a long history of throwing stones, and there are many adjectives to describe you.

      1. “David Banner”, I only need to point to your latest post to demonstrate your malevolence – all there in black and white! So not hard pressed at all.

  11. This is excellent journalism.
    I have had to thoroughly reevaluate, from the media picture presented, my opinion of this woman. it seems the right wing will sink to any level to push for privatisation. We must not let them.

  12. John, the irony of you suggesting I’m evil is amusing. It’s a cheap and easy throw away comment to make, but you don’t back it up with any evidence. Why? Because there isn’t a shred of it to back the notion I have evil intent, not a shred.

    Do you want to debate the issue at hand or simply reduce this to petty and juvenile name calling? Are you just an Internet Troll John?

    1. “Dave Banner”, you making comments about internet trolls is quite amusing. Others have come to similar judgments about your contribution – “persuading” you would be pointless, obviously.

      1. “John”, what do I need persuading on exactly or are you just trolling? It’s nice to have a stalker. Brightens up my day to get these well-thought out retorts from you.

        Now do you want to debate the issue at hand, if not then go and stalk/troll someone else.

  13. “Dave Banner”, every post you make illustrates my point more vividly. Very egotistical of you to believe I’d be “stalking” you, sadly you’re nowhere near interesting enough!

    1. Good, then jog on John, I think my ego can cope with the rejection, you’re the one engaging my egomaniacal tendencies, I didn’t approach you, you entered the discussion by abusing me – but don’t let the facts get in the way will you.

      1. This is another reason why I know you’re Chubby – a bit of amateur corpus linguistics.

  14. John, what are you drivelling on about with this “Chubby” reference?

  15. Dave, you did not answer me: the main thrust of your argument is that of ‘truth by consensus’ – it is a very poor tool for determining the veracity of a thesis or supposition. Aporeia?

  16. Sorry Rich, wasn’t clear that you were directing your question at me. I have no desire the discuss the philosophical merits of my views. I’m not driven by any political or religious ideology, and I’m not in a constant state of paranoia about the Government of the day, on any day, if anything they’re all much of a muchness.

    1. Dave will only engage on his terms, which betrays his agenda.

      1. Are you still simply looking for attention John? Truly, I’m flattered that you’re stalking me.

        I will only engage on my terms? Hogwash. I’m happy to engage in debate but I don’t see how getting philosophical about “truth by consensus” is in anyway constructive, given that I don’t actually believe in truth by consensus, ergo what is there to discuss?

        It’s pretty self-evident, even to my stalker and new favourite Internet troll, that all I’m saying to Steve is bring balance to his blogs. The position taken against anything “coalition” or “Tory” and the distinct lack of negative blogs about Labour, and the impact they’ve had on the NHS, such as privatisation, suggests the motivation of the author is more to do with Labour activism then seeking the truth, or at very least seeking the truth that fits an ideological perspective. This is of course not a surprise, Steve makes no secret of this, but it does however mean that balance is a difficult nut to crack.

        I look forward to your reply, which will undoubtedly follow, troll away.

      2. You haven’t read my blog very widely, David. Of course there’s more negative stuff about the government – they’re in government, and they’re hurting people. I’m anything but blind to Labour’s flaws, and those get examined here when appropriate – but they’re the only realistic hope of escape for the vast numbers of people suffering under this government.

        A balanced look at a toxic government is going to look very toxic, but that doesn’t make it unbalanced.

        I suspect that to an objective observer, there’s only one set of trolling behaviour in question here at the moment. And it isn’t John.

  17. Dave, it’s a very odd mentality to believe that posting a blog is “looking for attention”! Reflect for a minute if you will. Your desire for “balance” seems like nothing of the sort. You’ve admitted several times what your mission here is, implicitly but nonetheless quite unmistakably.
    You singularly fail to prove that Steve is flogging a conspiracy theory, and when challenged on this you refuse to respond, stating this is outside what you wish to discuss. You also fail to justify why Steve should even strive for “balance” (as judged by whom?) in his blog. Altogether, you fail in your purported mission.

    1. Dear John,

      As my new best friend, stalker and personal troll, try staying with the programme. I didn’t engage you, you engaged me, hence seeking my attention.

      I have a desire for balance. Unfortunately Steve doesn’t share this trait, so rather than allowing the sycophants (if the cap fits John…) and foolish (if the cap fits John…) to buy the slander and bile then I guess I do have a mission.

      I do not believe in politics at the edge of the political spectrum, where ideological nonsense is passed of as fact, or even considered well researched. Steve will argue equally about topics he clearly knows nothing of, business being a great example.

      I seek not to prove to Steve is wrong, I know he is, but I know I’ll never change his mind as it’s full of anger, hatred and bitterness. I’m holding him to account though.

      When you attack people, as Steve does, as you do, then don’t get surprised when people defend those that are being attacked. It’s what normal people do when they see bullying. The sanctimonious drivel Steve comes out with is utterly transparent. You’re both engaged in a quite vicious hate campaign against women. Steve uses this blog to claim he is the victim, you are the victim, the NHS are the victim but you’re part of the problem, and will never, ever, be part of the solution.

      Speak later Princess.

  18. Steve, when you use hyperbole like toxic its very hard to take you seriously. I don’t believe the current Government have a great deal of choice in making cuts, and the actual cuts made are fairly minimal in the general scheme of things, i.e. they haven’t gone nearly as deep as people have been led to believe they were going to go. Labour’s regime has left us bankrupt, we will be bankrupt for years to come. Whoever gets in next will provide more of the same, they’ve said as much already.

    There are very few objective observers of your blogs judging by the posts, just sycophants, fellow conspiracy theorists and trolls like John.

  19. Oh “Dave Banner”, you’re showing your trollish tendencies more and more! Not going to waste time on you.

    1. Fantastic news John, I never solicited a response from you in the first place. Jog. On. Princess.

      1. Homophobic idiot. Try associating with your own kind.

  20. Homophobic? I’m not suggesting you’re homosexual, I’m suggesting you act like a princess.

    As you were Princess.

  21. Ah, Godwin’s Law comes out to play. First you incorrectly call me homophobic, when that’s debunked you move on to suggesting I socialize online with fascists.

    Princess, have you just got “Arguing on the Internet for Dummies” out at the Library? Are you feeling unloved, virtual cuddle sent just for you Princess.

      1. We’ve established beyond doubt what your agenda is now anyway “Dave Banner”, for all your protestations – you’re simply a troll. You have no worthwhile contribution to make.

  22. There was never any doubt to my “agenda” John, and I’ve never suggested otherwise, I’ve been utterly consistent in that regard.

    Now, I thought you weren’t going to bother trolling anymore? Or can’t you help yourself? Do you have to have the last word Princess? I love being stalked. Awaits the next wild accusation and baseless jibe from you. You’ve tried homophobia, fascism, must only leave racism left to complete the set Princess.

    1. Oh, I had no doubt about your agenda “Dave Banner”, but you were trying to obfuscate. I know a troll when I see one.

      1. Of course Princess. Let the big boys play, you go back to your research. You clearly need to study more, troll less.

  23. “Dave Banner”, you think you’re one of the “big boys”? I know exactly, what you are, you’re like all trolls – quite insecure and without a life outside the internet.

  24. That’s right Princess, I spend all of my time on Social Media, like the Twitter account I don’t post on, and the Facebook page I haven’t got. Whereas DocInsanity and John Rumbold is everywhere, according to a cursory Google search at least. Revealing I would say, revealing.

    Boom!! There goes another window in your glasshouse.

    1. Ah, a walking, breathing demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect! I’d stop demonstrating your stupidity if I were you.

    2. “Boom! There goes another window in your glasshouse”
      David, you’ve failed to notice those windows are Perspex, not glass. Transparent and unbreakable – i.e. with the added advantage of
      rational argument.

  25. But John, I am better than you. Why don’t you tell everyone who you are, show your hand, let the cards fall where they fall and let people judge for themselves. I’m game, are you?

    1. Right, that’s enough. From both of you, but especially you now, David. I told you before, nobody’s going there on this blog. Any more and you’re blocked permanently.

      1. Fair enough Steve, not going to respond to the troll any more. This whole conversation has not achieved anything constructive.

  26. It’s easy to find quotes from Conservative politicians about the desire to privatize the NHS. It’s no conspiracy theory, it’s simply the view of many people around the country. It’s no surprise that the term isn’t being used by the Conservatives – but the conclusion that this is what they are doing is inescapable IMO. They probably won’t dare to privatize it wholly, but will be happy to see at best a two-tier service and the end of the “free at the point of need” principle.

    1. Never in doubt John, as I’ve clearly stated, so moot point. It’s also just as easy to find quotes of the reverse, and that, as you know full well would provide more balance.

      Of course some Tories wish to wholly privatise the NHS, again I’ve never suggested otherwise, so again another moot point.

      I have also stated they won’t dare do it, another moot point.

      So, from all if that you’ll see we actually agree. What we don’t agree on is the depths to which this process is in play, I see nothing more, and nothing less, than we saw from the previous government, who privatised parts if the NHS in any case. I see change and the NHS has always resisted change.

      There is already a two-tier health system, private heathcare and NHS, with many health professionals with a foot in both camps. This has existing for many years.

      The notion that the NHS is free at the point of need is a loose one, most users pay for future care through National Insurance. My car insurance is also free at the point of need, but I pay in advance.

      Free is not a term you can sensibly place on the NHS, and if you want the best care then private healthcare does provide this, see Dentists as an example. The treatment you get if you can pay is far different to the treatments provided by a NHS dentist.

      So two-tier health already exists and the quality of NHS care needs to be, in all cases, comparable to that you can pay for.

      1. David, I think you’re too optimistic when you say the Tories won’t dare to privatise the NHS. The Health and Social Care Bill has guaranteed it. They’ve already set up a mechanism for selling off NHS assets through the new NHS Property Services Ltd (Propco) whose business plan specifically states their intention to sell off land and buildings.
        As for the myth that private healthcare is better than NHS I have personal experience to the contrary. When I was nursing I lost count of the number of emergency admissions we had from private hospitals of patients whose surgery had gone wrong. Yes, the hotel like facilities might be better but would you really want to be tucked away out of sight in a luxury room after major surgery where the nursing staff fail to notice that you’re haemorrhaging or worse?

  27. Also, the connections between Cure and certain Conservatives are becoming more and more apparent. They may have been funded by certain Tories, for example.

    1. Until that “may have been funded” becomes “are funded” and proof is provided then its an easy, lazy and groundless accusation. My “agenda” as you put it is simply to call out lazy accusations that are made, always without proof, usually out of context where Twitter is quoted and done for reasons I’m yet to truly understand, and I certainly don’t agree with.

  28. We know that’s not your agenda “Dave”, hence why I will not engage with you further.

  29. OK John, suits me, please stop soliciting me for a response and I’ll stop responding.

    1. I wasn’t “soliciting a reponse”, so no need to respond.

  30. sparaszczukster, you’re absolutely right and anyone in healthcare knows this – don’t have a major operation in a private hospital. The cover is a joke – the consultant surgeon will pop in after his NHS work to check on you and the resident doctor can’t make any decisions! Very scary situation.

  31. This quote reminds me so much of JB and GiletGirl “John, I’m better than you”. This rich vein of self-righteousness permeates the Cure campaign and presumably justifies their nastiness to themselves. Really quite nauseating to see them attack various people and try to still claim the moral high ground.

    1. John, I thought we agreed that you were no longer stalking me? I see no difference in your behaviour, but of course you don’t see it, or perhaps you do. Either way I’m not really minded to debate it with you.

      1. Seems a completely pointless post Dave.

  32. sparaszczukster, I’ve had 2 operations, 1 major, 1 minor, at a private hospital. Both were first class in terms of pre-op, op and post-op care. Nothing was too much trouble. I’ve no doubt that things don’t go well for all, but that is the nature of complexity. I have no reservation in private / public healthcare provision. My point was that it exists today, and from my experience its not a bad thing.

    1. That’s the point Dave – what happens when things don’t go well? Ask most staff who work in neurosurgery or cardiac surgery and they wouldn’t have a major op in a private hospital (with a few exceptions in the largest cities).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: