It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


141 Peers have Financial Links to Companies Involved in Private Health Care

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 10:05 AM
This story, although coming too late to derail the controversial NHS reform bill here in the UK, is still an important one to be aware of. One thing to consider is why this information did not appear in any MSM broadcast, newspaper or website.

It has in fact been brought into the light on the blog, Social Investigations

The numbers:
In total there are 141 Peers that have these connections, representing 17% of the total. The Conservatives who created the bill and in many quarters want to see the NHS dismantled had over a quarter of their members with these self-interests. This is intolerable. In addition to this the Liberal Democrats who have allowed this bill to go through have one in ten with these interests. This may well be the least, but none of them should have been allowed to vote. However the self-interest is across the board with one in six Crossbench peers and one in six Labour peers having these interests. This means we must watch them if they get back into power in case they try and water down any repeal.

When we look into more detail, as I did for Virginia Bottomley and Lord Chadlington the behaviour and the clear conflict becomes apparent.
Conservatives: 1 in 4 – see full list
Liberal Democrats: 1 in 10 – see full list
Labour: 1 in 6 – see full list
Crossbench: 1 in 6 – see full list

........... full lists of individuals and there affiliations is at Social Investigations link above

The story taken on by the RT News channel.

The discussions in the story are many;
The buying of Peerages
The writting of policy by big business
The system that exists that allows it to happen
Shaping Society
Personal financial gain (obviously)
Others ?

I know in the US, there's talk of "pork payments" and politicians ties to "big interests", but here in the UK this talk is more muted, with voters seeing far less a connection between individual Lords and MP's and "big interests", with the emphasis more on party ties to "big interests".

Long overdue for scrutiny I for one hope that Social Investigations expand on this story, because no doubt the MSM will not be covering it widely, now or in the future without prompting.

The more light that shines on the individuals MP's and Peers actions and ties, the better, it might just make them think a little more about there actions if the finger starts to point at individuals.

The revolving door between politics and big business / big interest has just been oiled.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:13 PM
Much of the medical profession robustly opposed the reforms. This is an extract of the letter the BMA sent to all it's members:

The BMA, and the many organisations across the health sector which later joined us, may not have achieved the ultimate aim of getting the Bill withdrawn, but we still had a significant impact.

From the very beginning, we lobbied MPs and Peers, engaged with other medical organisations and ensured that our members' concerns had a high public profile. From our early position of "critical engagement", where we sought to try to ensure that any potentially positive aspects of the reforms could be achieved in the most effective and least disruptive way, through to our call at our Special Representatives Meeting back in March 2011 for the Bill to be withdrawn or substantially amended, and even up to the final stages of the Bill's passage through Parliament - when we were calling for the Bill to be dropped - we achieved some positive movement.

In April 2011 the Government, mindful of the professions' concerns, was forced to pause the legislative process, create the Future Forum and "listen" - an event unprecedented in parliamentary history. On your behalf, we successfully lobbied for amendments...

The Bill that has just passed has been subject to well over 1000 amendments, but I accept this was not enough and it would still be much better not to have had the Bill in the first place. The legislation is flawed; at its core, even with amendments, it places too much emphasis on market forces and risks greater fragmentation of our health service. I believe it was right to have spoken loudly and repeatedly about the risks inherent within it.

Doctors and nurses and other hard working, well educated professionals could not prevent this disgusting display of self-interest and the further syphoning of the nations wealth into private or corporate bank accounts.

They took our water, they took our energy, they took our telecoms, they took our housing and constantly threaten to take our mail. We thought our schools and our hospitals would be safe.

Every bit of the nations infrastructure is being privatised and carved up. Deregulation was the filthy piece of work that made it palatable. All those people that bought shares when Thatcher sold off British Gas, probably just thought they were making good investments to protect theirs and their family's futures. Little did they anticipate future pricing policy to fund fat cat bonus's.

(The BMA and others were successful in striking out some elements of the proposed Bill. They are mainly concerned about increasing 'market place philosophy' conflicting with patient care.)

edit on 1/4/2012 by teapot because:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by ukWolf

splendid dirt ukwolf.
will be sending the info to others not on ats. it comes as no surprise and furthers my opinion that this system of governance is out of control, not fit for purpose and needs tethering back to the people it was supposed to represent. sadly the apathy tablets continue to be dished out.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by ukWolf

lol. Not. Nor am I surprised.

...The majority of the world is sick and starving - makes sense the 1% are putting their bets on medical care and food. And oh yeah, sex too.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by soficrow

much damage was inflicted on the nhs by the pfi (private financial initiatives) from labour under teflon tony if i am not mistaken. hospitals and local authorities paying back construction and running costs and the like to private companies over 25 years. one tale i read a number of years back was a firm replacing one plug socket and charging approx £75 for the task.
what they have in store for us all is indeed mind boggling but more so for the majority who maybe haven't even bothered looking into these matters. now where is my ration card/id/bank account number/donated organ credit balance?

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by fakedirt

I agree fakedirt its not really that surprising is it, there is so much too pick on in the story it got me annoyed, in the end I thought it just best to log the info, others may re-visit from time to time.

It makes me wonder what the final straw for everyone will be, my guess is on the basics fuel, food or water, time will tell.

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by soficrow

You can bet too that those without Private Health Care interests will be voting for there "Pals" and be expecting the same in return when its there turn at the trough.

top topics


log in