Wednesday, 3 September 2008

A classic Labour/Tory spat.

People, people, this isn't what motions to Parliament should be for.

*S3M-2456.1 Jackson Carlaw: Condemnation of the Comments of Andrew Lansley and Defence of the NHS in Scotland—As an amendment to motion (S3M-2456) in the name of Margaret Curran, leave out from first "calls on" to end and insert "is wearying of the parade of invitations to pay tribute to the former Lib/Lab administration, rejected by the electorate in May 2007; invites the Scottish Government to press on with evidence-based action to assist the people of Scotland to tackle health inequalities and to do so without fear or favour to the record of the Labour party, which having governed the people of Glasgow for decades has singularly failed to improve health inequalities within the city, and calls on members of all parties to measure success less by reference to health spending and more by reference to health outcomes while ensuring that all people in Scotland, of whatever financial means, can access the healthcare they deserve."

Text of original motion:
S3M-02456 Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Scottish Labour): Condemnation of the Comments of Andrew Lansley and Defence of the NHS in Scotland— That the Parliament calls on Conservative UK Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley MP, to withdraw his comments suggesting that health spending should be reduced in Glasgow and spent elsewhere in the United Kingdom; believes that Mr Lansley’s apparent conclusion that health spending is inverse to health outcomes and should therefore be reduced in areas of poor health is a perverse logic that risks denying people in most need the healthcare that they require and deserve and that this is an alarming indication of the Conservatives’ intention to cut NHS funding; notes with equal concern that Mr Lansley’s wish may already be being granted by the SNP government in light of the recently announced £42 million of cuts to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the fact that health spending in the Scottish Government’s budget fails to match the year-on-year increases of both the UK Government for England and those of the previous Scottish administration; further notes that, if this trend continues, Scotland’s historically higher health spending per head of population is at risk of being reversed within the next five years, and calls on members of all parties to defend the NHS in Scotland from further cuts and ensure that all people in Scotland of whatever financial means can access the healthcare that they deserve.

Seriously, no-one listens to this kind of Punch and Judy stuff, no matter how important the actual issues may be. Just leave it out. Actually, I fear we'll get an SNP amendment too, given that Mags named them in her original motion.


Anonymous said...

Actually I have to disagree on this one, certainly in terms of Margaret Curran.

It is a bit 'Punch and Judy' but the substance of the issue is fair enough: one party says that it wants to spend more on health than another.

It might be confrontational but it's not crap chat (well, I don't think so anyway).

Jeff said...

I agree with Ideas.

But no need to split hairs over it, and it's still a rather fascinating exchange. Good use of words from Jackson there.

I'm sure we'll have plenty of genuine crap chat just around the corner!