Posts Tagged ‘Frank Field’

Private Eye on Frank Field Undermining His Labour Colleagues

September 20, 2018

At the end of last month, Mike ran a story about the resignation of Frank Field from the Labour whip. Field claimed he was resigning the party whip because of the party’s supposed anti-Semitism problem and what he called ‘a culture of nastiness’.

In fact, as Mike pointed out, Field’s decision had nothing to do with any of that, and was actually spurred by him losing a no confidence vote held by his constituency party. They were angered by his decision to prop up May’s and her Tory government over Brexit.

Under party laws, Field had fourteen days to resign from the party completely or be thrown out. As for him standing as an independent, that’s an empty threat. Without the backing of the major parties, independent candidates stand little chance of getting elected. So the statement that his departure from the party could result in more right-wing Labour MPs leaving is an empty threat. They know perfectly well that if they do this, they too will vanish politically.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/08/31/dont-be-fooled-by-fake-news-frank-field-left-labour-rather-than-be-kicked-out/

As for Field’s allegation that the ‘culture of nastiness’ was being “driven, in part, by members who in previous years would never have been able to claim Labour Party membership”, this is less a description of his opponents and far more accurate as a description of him. Nearly twenty years ago, Field got into the pages of Private Eye’s ‘HP Sauce’ column because of his intriguing against colleagues in the Labour party, including urging voters to support a Liberal candidate instead.

the article was in the Eye’s edition for Friday, 21st August 1998, and ran

Frank Field’s apparent desire to speak the unspeakable on welfare reform is not the first time he has kicked against the pricks in his party.

Back in 1980 the Eye welcomed him into parliament (New Boys, 483) recalling his nickname of “Judas”. This was earned in Labour circles for his outspoken attacks on the Wilson government when he was director of the Child Poverty Action Group. This was nothing compared to the bizarre events associated with him during the Euro elections in north Wales in 1984, however.

Labour candidate Ian Campbell found himself discredited in a series of quarter-page advertisements in the local papers, which claimed that Frank Field MP urged Labour party supporters to support Tom Ellis, the candidate for the SDP/Liberal Alliance, who was then standing on a straightforward Liberal ticket.

Pleas from Campbell to Field to retract these reported views, and to canvas with him to disprove such presumably false claims, found no response. Neither did the diehards of the labour party’s general secretary for a retraction; he was forced in a conversation with Campbell to admit that Field was simply a “maverick” over whom the party had no control.

Labour lost the seat by a small margin and Field never denied the views attributed to him – views which, according to the rules, should have led to his expulsion from the party. (p. 8).

I realise the events are over thirty years ago, but they do seem to reflect very well what kind of character Field had. I could never work out why he remained in the Labour party, as he believed that life should be made even tougher for the unemployed. The Conservative Anglican blog, Cranmer, thoroughly supported him, and openly stated that Field would be welcome in the Conservative ranks if he crossed the floor.

Field’s resignation thus is no loss to the party. And as Mike points out, it leaves his constituency party free to elect a real Labour party worker to be their prospective MP.

Advertisements

Frank Fields Asks Tories If His Local Food Banks Are Scaremongering About Extra Food Needed for Universal Credit

October 25, 2017

I found this telling snippet from RT on YouTube yesterday. It’s of the Labour MP stating that his local food bank are not scaremongering, but have made the prediction after careful consultation with the other food banks in the area after Universal Credit was rolled out. They say that they will need an extra 15 tonnes of food as Universal Credit cannot be implemented without increasing poverty.

He was answered by Damian Hinds for the Tories, and as he rises you can hear a female voice – presumably that of another Labour MP – asking him whether he feels proud. He replies that he certainly would not accuse Fields’ food bank of scaremongering, but the government does not agree that they will need the extra 15 tonnes of food. Because they all believe in Universal Credit and want it to work. And it is improving, and it and they are evolving.

Mike and the other left-wing bloggers have been covering the immense poverty caused by Universal Credit after it was launched as the pet vanity project of the Gentleman Ranker, Iain Duncan Smith. Smith declared it was going to be greatest act to liberate people since William Wilberforce finally secured the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire in 1809. Which shows just how vain and mendacious aIDS was. In the years since it was announced, Universal Credit has resulted in nothing but delayed payments and massive, grinding poverty and misery for those poor souls, who’ve seen it rolled out in their areas.

It’s massively over budget and over time, and it should have been abolished years ago. The great British space scientist, Freeman Dyson, in his book Imagined Worlds, states that experiments should be allowed to fail when they don’t work, instead of throwing good money after bad. He was talking about the repeated failure of expensive scientific projects, like attempts to create a workable fusion reactor. But the same argument could be applied to political experiments, like UC.

I don’t know whether Hinds is consciously lying when he says the Tories are determined to make it work, or if he’s just one of the Tory faithful, that swallow everything Tory Central Office tells them. Other lies believed by the Tory faithful are that the Tories aren’t destroying the welfare state, they’re just targeting benefits more effectively, and that they aren’t privatising the NHS. Both are untrue, but Tory rhetoric and the way the privatisation and cuts are structured carefully hide this.

In the case of Universal Credit, the system is so obviously a failure that it’s clear to me that it’s only kept going because it is forcing people into poverty. That’s what the Tories want: a poor workforce, kept in the constant fear of unemployment, with few or no rights at work, and as many people off welfare as possible – but not necessarily in unemployment – in order to try and fool people that they are creating jobs, and give even more tax cuts to the rich.

It’s long, long past high time that Universal Credit was stopped as the sham it is, and the Tories cleaned out of government.

Lobster: Maggie Thatcher Regretted Cutting Taxes

January 19, 2017

I found this extremely interesting snippet in Robin Ramsay’s ‘News from the Bridge’ section in the latest issue of the parapolitics magazine, Lobster, for Summer 2017. According to Frank Field, shortly after she retired, someone asked her what she most regretted. The Iron Lady answered that it was cutting taxes. She said she believed that it would result in a more giving society. This had not materialised.

He writes

I watch our politicians and, even though I know that as politicians they’re interested in power first and the truth second (or fifth, or not at all15), and have been conditioned to listen to polls and focus groups for their professed views, I find myself unable to suppress the thought: I wonder what they are really thinking? Take Margaret Thatcher: what did she really think she was doing when she fronted the creation of the grossly unequal society we now have? Frank Field MP gave us a striking insight into her thinking recently. Just after
she retired she was asked, ‘“What was your greatest disappointment in
government?” Back shot Mrs T: “I cut taxes because I thought we would get a giving society. And we haven’t.”

If we take this seriously, she apparently thought charitable giving would replace some of the state’s functions. This is consistent with the anti-state prejudices of the group with which she was allied in the 1970s – Keith Joseph, Alfred Sherman, the Institute for Economic Affairs et al. Another interpretation would be that, having decided to cut taxes to win elections, she rationalised the reduction in state spending with the thought. ‘Oh, well, people will give more to charity.’ Either way, it shows that Mrs T had no understanding of the
society in which she lived and the great tide of possessive individualism17 she was encouraging. But we knew that already, I guess.

See the section ‘Oh, Really?’ at http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster73/lob73-view-from-the-bridge.pdf

Assuming that this is genuine, and not Thatcher trying to make herself look genuinely caring and self-aware when the opposite was the case, this undermines somewhat the central myth of Thatcherism. The Tories have consistently attacked the welfare state on the grounds that it discourages private charity. I remember Thatcher and the Tory press prating on about how the retreat of welfare provision would strengthen private charity, as private individuals and charities stepped in to fill the vacuum left by the state. Reagan and the Republicans spouted the same nonsense over the other side of the Pond, followed by Bill Clinton. There’s footage of the former governor of Arkansas telling one Conservative group that ‘we know that there isn’t a government programme for every need or social problem’ or words to that effect, before going on to praise the effectiveness of private charity in tackling poverty and deprivation. And it’s true that American religious Conservatives are personally more generous than secular liberals. But the left has pointed out that private charity is inadequate for tackling poverty, unemployment, and issues like disability and poor health. You need state provision.

Now it seems, despite all the rubbish talked about Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ or May’s ‘shared society’, all this Thatcherite talk about private charity was rubbish, and known to be so by the woman who uttered it, after she tried it and it didn’t work. This has to be an embarrassment to a party for whom Maggie can do no wrong, and which is still preaching her discredited bilge nearly forty years after she came to power.

Get May and the Tories out now! Before they can wreck the NHS still further.

Philip Green Threatens to Sue Frank Field over Comparison with Maxwell

July 26, 2016

Here’s one incident of bullying that this time doesn’t come from the embittered remnants of New Labour. Mike also reported that Sir Philip Green, the man, who ran BHS into the ground, now wants to sue Frank Field for comparing him with Robert Maxwell. Maxwell, if you remember, was the media mogul, who stole money from the Mirror Group’s pension fund, leaving the newspaper in a precarious financial position. Maxwell did so illegally. Green, on the other hand, also took massive amounts of money from BHS, including its pension fund, quite legally. The company still collapsed, however. His lawyers, Schillings, who specialise in libel actions, claim that Field’s comments are defamatory. Field, on his part, has made it clear that he is not going to apologise, and described Green’s attack as displacement therapy.

See Mike’s article: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/07/25/green-demands-apology-from-field-over-comparison-to-robert-maxwell/

Schillings, and the other overpaid firms of solicitors specialising in this area of the law, Carter-Ruck, are regularly in the pages of Private Eye for the way they sue and bully the weak on behalf of the rich, powerful and corrupt. Carter-Ruck have been in the magazine’s pages so often, that they’ve acquired a nickname: Carter-F*ck. In fact it seems to me that the comparison between Maxwell and Green is entirely appropriate, as their personal greed did imperil their companies. Maxwell plunged the Mirror Group into a financial crisis, and Green’s own cupidity has effectively destroyed BHS. Even the question of legality, which is the chief difference between the two cases, does not seem to me to be as clear cut as Green would like everyone to believe. I’m sure that Green did act perfectly legally. But although Robert Maxwell acted illegally, I think that his plundering of the Mirror’s pension fund was enabled by a piece of legislation Margaret Thatcher had passed. This allowed businessmen to include pension schemes as part of their companies’ assets. This, it appears to me, encouraged Maxwell and some others like him, who are less notorious, to rob these accounts under the attitude that they were just another source of money.

Anyway, I think that the parallels between Maxwell and Green are so close, that the only correct response is Arkell Vs Pressdram, as Private Eye would say.

Ian Duncan Smith Whines about Being Blamed for Fitness for Work Tests Deaths

February 12, 2016

IDS Death Meme

Yesterday, I blogged on Mike’s piece over at Vox Political on the Gentleman Ranker’s umbrage at the numerous studies linking his welfare to work policies with suicides, death by neglect and starvation, and a massive rise in mental illness. Frank Field had written a letter to him asking about this. AIDS’ response was to splutter about ‘outrageous claims’, and issue a flat-out lie that claimants were treated with sympathy and dignity. They aren’t. Field himself has said that his constituents have told him that DWP staff have asked them when they’re expecting to die if they’re terminally ill. Severely depressed people with thoughts of suicide have even been asked why they haven’t killed themselves. This is vile conduct, and it stems from aIDS and his fellow Tories at the top.

Mike also reproduced the scrawled letter aIDS had written on his blog. It seems that the Minister in Charge of Chequebook Genocide was also miffed at being criticised for the failings of the DWP, when the fitness for work test was introduced by New Labour. He wailed that it wasn’t fair for them to escape criticism while he gets the blame.

I’ve no sympathy for this argument. Yes, it was introduced by Bliar and New Labour. And the critics of the welfare-to-work industry heartily despise them for it as a well. Just read through some of the blogs, and the articles on it in the ‘In the Back’/’Footnotes’ column in Private Eye for the years around the turn of the century when Bliar was meeting John LoCascio and the other ratbags from Unum. The Angry Yorkshireman has voiced his anger about it, as have Johnny Void, Kitty S. Jones and Mike at Vox Political. And they’re continuing to bash the Blairites as they try to hang on to power in Labour.

This does not exonerate the Spurious Major from his part in the mass death of Britain’s disabled. When Cameron came to power, he was posing as being more left-wing than Labour. He promised to protect the NHS from cuts, and be the most environmentally friendly administration ever. It was all just words, and once he started he swiftly showed himself to be just another privatising Tory with nothing but contempt for the poor and hatred for those at the bottom.

IDS could have stood up to him. He could have held him to make good his promises. He could have demanded that the Tories discontinue the work capability tests, or at least that they should be revised and made less stringent. He didn’t. Because fundamentally, he believes in the policy and has absolutely no qualms about the immense harm it’s doing to the very poorest.

And I particularly despise the man’s self-pity because he seems to find the suffering of others an immense joke. When one Labour MP raised the issue of how one of her constituents had been treated, aIDS laughed it off in parliament. Mike blogged about it, and has the piccie to show it. But like all thugs and bullies, it’s different when it comes to him.

He deserves every piece of criticism he gets.

Vox Political Meme on the ‘Caring’ Conduct of the DWP

February 11, 2016

Earlier this evening I reblogged Mike’s article about aIDS’ hissy fit over Mike’s blog, and others like his, describing the way people are dying or left mentally ill, sometimes extremely seriously, after being found ‘fit for work’ by Atos and now Maximus. Apparently the Minister for Chequebook Genocide thinks these are ‘outrageous claims’. The only part of his sorry affair that is outrageous is the conduct of the DWP and its mendacious and cowardly head.

Mike’s piece included this meme below, which comprehensively rebuts aIDS’ claim that those assessed are treated fairly and with courtesy. And Field isn’t the only person to have reported such treatment of claimants. Others have too. There have been a number of horrendous reports of people suffering from severe depression being asked why they haven’t committed suicide after they’ve revealed that they’ve suffered thoughts of ending their lives.

Disgraceful. As is all of this shabby, murderous, criminal regime.

Field Terminal Ill Meme

Vox Political Admits Making Outrageous (and Entirely True) Claims about Ian Duncan Smith

February 11, 2016

Mike over at Vox Political has written a long piece openly admitting that he has made ‘outrageous’ claims about aIDS, and challenged the ‘Gentleman Ranker’ to prove that they’re untrue. The Tory MP currently in charge of killing the poor, the unemployed and the disabled is angry that certain people have been making the connection between his wretched welfare policies, and the mass deaths of people, who’ve been sent back to work despite being clearly unfit. His outburst whining about these critics was written in response to an inquiry by Labour’s Frank Field, asking about the numbers of deaths of people assessed as fit to work and the possible link to his policies.

This has been too much for aIDS’ delicate ego, and he written back trying to defend himself, and accusing some in the media of making ‘outrageous claims’. Mike, understandably, has taken that as a personal attack on him and his blog, as he has been one of those fighting to get the true statistics on the number of people, who’ve been killed by the Gentleman Ranker’s wretched welfare to work policy for years. And throughout those years Mike, and the others also requesting this information, have been turned down, stonewalled and frankly lied to. I’ve reblogged Mike’s pieces on it and commented on his progress here. Now Mike’s hit back at IDS’ own ‘outrageous claim’ that he’s killed no one with his policy, citing academic studies. And, as any good academic does, he also shows that he has a good understanding of the underlying scientific methodology regarding the collation and interpretation of such information. This is probably more than … Smith has. His academic credentials are entirely spurious. He claims to have received a degree from an Italian institution, which doesn’t actually issue them. And when previously challenged on his statistics, which were shown to be untrue, aIDS refused to accept the evidence. Despite it being shown otherwise, Smith stated that he ‘believed’ they were true. No proof, no evidence, just blind faith. It’s an attitude that would astonish theologians and philosophers, who have to deal with questions of proof, evidence and reason in their own disciplines. One feels that Wittgenstein and Popper, two of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, would have their work cut out trying to teach this man the basic principles of ‘epistemology’ – the theory of knowledge.

Mike’s article begins

Iain Duncan Smith can’t prove us wrong. He deliberately refuses to collect the statistics that would confirm his claims – or ours.

Instead, he has claimed that This Blog (and presumably others) has accused him of “outrageous action”, without providing a scrap of evidence against the allegation.

This Writer is delighted that the Gentleman Ranker has tried to defend himself. I am currently working on a book covering this subject and his words may provide an excellent introduction.

The man we like to call RTU (Return To Unit – a Forces description of someone who trained to be an officer but was a washout) was responding to a request for information from Frank Field, chairman of the Commons work and pensions committee.

Mr Field had asked what data the DWP collects on the deaths of benefit claimants, in an attempt to find out whether there is any link between the work capability assessment (WCA) – carried out on claimants of Employment and Support Allowance and the Personal Independent Payment – and suicide, self-harm and mental ill-health.

The issue had been raised in research by Oxford University and Liverpool University entitled First Do No Harm.

This Blog reported on that document’s findings here – and you would be well-advised to refresh your memory of that article before you see the Secretary-in-a-State’s comments.

You should also read Vox Political‘s follow-up article in which a response from the Department for Work and Pensions – attempting to deny the research findings – is comprehensively disproved.

And there’s more. Much more. It’s at http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/02/11/yes-iain-duncan-smith-vox-political-has-accused-you-of-outrageous-action-prove-us-wrong/

As for the title of the Oxford University study, First Do No Harm – this is was part of Hippocratic Oath. You know, the oath that for centuries doctors had to swear, which prescribed correct professional medical conduct. And the first and most important of its provisions was that the physician should do no harm to his patient. It’s a principle of medical ethics that’s glaringly, painfully obvious when you think about it. But not to the aIDS or the Tories. It’s not as though this is particularly arcane academic knowledge either. It gets into Star Trek, in the Voyager series, where in one episode it’s repeated by the holographic doctor played by Robert Picardo. Somehow, I don’t think IDS watched that one. Unfortunately, he didn’t learn it anywhere else either. And certainly not at an Italian college or uni, which didn’t give him his fictional degree.

Vox Political on Private Healthcare Overcharging the NHS

January 27, 2015

Rapacious Quack

18th Century Satirical Print: The Rapacious Quack. It depicts a poor family at the mercy of a doctor, who has taken away a flitch of bacon in lieu of unpaid fees. Its caption reads
‘The Rapacious Quack quite vext to find,
His patient poor, and so forsaken
A thought soon sprung up in his mind
To take away a piece of bacon.’
Which just about describes the grasping attitude of the private healthcare firms mentioned in the report.

Earlier this evening I blogged a piece on Mike’s story over at Vox Political on Ed Miliband’s promise to rebuild and strengthen the NHS. The piece is Will voters support Labour’s vision for the NHS? and it’s at http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/27/will-voters-support-labours-vision-for-the-nhs/. It offers hope for an NHS decimated by the Tories, but also by Blair and Brown.

Mike also wonders in the piece whether Alan Milburn, Blair’s former health secretary, is really a member of the Labour party, or a Tory, who has worked his way into Labour to undermine it. He isn’t the only one. A few weeks ago, Johnny Void pointed out how one of the authors of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s report suggesting the establishment of a national network of food banks was Frank Field, and made the same comments about him. Field is notorious for recommending further cuts to the welfare state to encourage unemployed hoi polloi to find work. And it isn’t only his critics, who have suggested he should join the Tories. He also has admirers within that party, who’ve actually made the invitation. The politically Conservative Cranmer blog actually invited Field to cross the floor and join the Tories.

And the same comments could have been made about much of the New Labour leadership. Remember the computer programme back in the 1990s that made anagrams from politicians’ names, supposedly revealing their real character? Michael Portillo was ‘a cool, limp Hitler’. Blair came out as ‘I am Tory Plan B’. Lobster compared Blair to Ted Heath. Both were men leading the wrong parties. Giles Brandreth, who served on John Major’s Tory cabinet in the 1990s, on Have I Got News For You described the Blairs, both Tony and Cherie, as natural Tories. They were, and they similarly pursued a policy of privatising the NHS piecemeal.

In the first few years of this century Patricia Hewitt wanted to sell of the £64bn commissioning and supply arm of the NHS, but ended up having to reject the plan, claiming it was mistaken. She therefore just privatised hospital management. And one of the brilliant ideas of Blair’s administration was the inclusion of private healthcare companies to pick up work that could not be done by an overstretched NHS. Who was the brains behind this, ahem, operation?

Alan Milburn.

And in 2009 Private Eye carried a story about an independent report that concluded the private healthcare providers were overcharging the NHS, including billing for work they did not carry out. The article was in their edition for the 15th – 30th May. Here it is.

NHS Plc.
ISTCs: A Crying Sham

Another crumbling New Labour initiative, independent sector treatment centres (ISTCs) for NHS operations, has ben exposed as a shambolic waste of money.

ISTCs were supposed to provide low-cost operations to an overstretched NHS. But the have long been suspected of creaming off the most lucrative ones under favourable contracts without providing the quality to be found in the NHS.

A 2006 parliamentary report questioned their value for money and asked the National Audit Office to look into it. Several billions of pounds of public money were at stake, but the audit body has oddly shied away from the subject despite reportedly expressing some concern over the ISTCs’ performance and £100m+ procurement costs 18 months ago.

Now academics Allyson Pollock and Graham Kirkwood at Edinburgh University have obtained the contract for one ISTC under Scottish freedom of information laws (contracts in England remain confidential). This shows that the NHS in Tayside paid an ISTC run by Amicus Healthcare – a joint venture of private equity firm Apax and South Africa’s Netcare – for 90 percent of referrals even though the centre only performed 32 percent of them. The academics estimate that Tayside’s overpayments could be dwarfed by those across England, where the NHS could have been stung by up to £927m for operations not performed.

The £5bn ISTC programme was pushed through by the Department of Health’s commercial directorate, set up in 2003 by the then health secretary, Alan Milburn, now earning £30k a year from the private equity firm Bridgepoint that owns ISTCs through Alliance Medical. The directorate was run by American Ken Anderson (since decamped to Swiss bank UBS’s private health investments) and was exposed by the Eye two years ago as home to 220 consultants on an average £238k a year, much channelled through tax-efficient service companies. It has since been quietly disbanded without ever having faced the scrutiny it warranted.

This effectively explains why Milburn was so keen to pour scorn on Miliband’s plans for the NHS: he’s working for a private equity firm that will lose work in that area if Miliband starts to take seriously the NHS’ commitment to providing free state medicine.

It also shows how better governed Scotland is than England. The two academics are able to get details like this through the Scots freedom of information act, which is denied to citizens south of the Border.

As for Amicus Healthcare, I remember Amicus as the American rival to Hammer films way back in the 1970s. Although American, they used much of the same actors and production staff. Sadly, Hammer and Amicus passed away, though the horror continues under the Amicus name.

From 2012: Private Eye on the Massive Contracts for the Workfare Firms

January 20, 2015

This article was also in Private Eye for the 10th – 23rd February 2012.

Benefits Bonanza

Even before the government has got its controversial welfare reforms through parliament, it’s signing fat cheques to its friends in the private sector to implement them.

Accenture has already secured a seven-year contract worth up to roughly £500m to manage provision of the IT systems for the new universal credit benefits scheme, which is supposed to simplify the benefits process. The outsourcing giant will bring in subcontractors to build the “customer-facing component” of the scheme, which presumably means online applications. And the principal subcontractor is … none other than Atos, the old favourite of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Eye.

IBM has already been given a £525m contract to provide various DWP system, including customer information and “a fraud referral and intervention service”, and a further £100m contract has gone to HP for software.

Ministers have clearly decided to ignore the Commons public accounts committee, which warned that nearly a third of the UK’s poorest citizens – and those therefore who are most likely to depend on benefits – never use computers.

These are the companies that are profiting from the exploitation of unemployed, the disabled and most vulnerable.

The same piece has this to say about Unum, the big American insurance fraudster demanding the effective privatisation of the NHS and the dismantling of the welfare state. And Mike over at Vox Political has also attacked the government’s assumption that everyone on benefits should now have access to a computer to receive them.

Meanwhile, well-informed readers tell us that when we outlined disgraced American insurance giant’s Unum’s unhealthy influence on successive governments’ efforts to slash benefits for the sick and disabled, we omitted a very important meeting held at Westminster’s Portcullis House last March under Chatham House rules.

Billed as a new progressive conservatism project report on welfare reform, the guest speakers lined up included Lord Freud, the minister for welfare reform, Labour’s Frank Field and … Jack McGarry, CEO of Unum UK, which has been pushing its employment protection insurance on the back of welfare reform ever since. The title of the event? “Of Mutual Benefit”.

It’s interesting that the two other figures, besides McGarry, were Freud and Frank Field. Field is of course another advocated of slashing benefits in the belief that it will force the poor and unemployed to find work. As Johnny Void has pointed out in his article, he was one of the people involved in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s report urging the establishment of national network of food banks. As for Freud, he is notorious for having no sympathy for the poor whatsoever.

Sparaszczukster on Reform – The Independent Think-Tank, Sponsored by 30 Multinationals, Demanding the Privatisation of the NHS

July 23, 2013

The excellent and well-informed Granny’s Last Mix has a very interesting story on Reform. This is an ostensibly independent charity, sponsored by 30 multinationals, recommending the dismantlement and privatisation of the NHS. Sparaszczukster says of it

Reform is a free market think tank, whose mission according to their website, is to ‘set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity.’ They are also an official charity, although, as Robertson demonstrates, not in the traditional sense. The Oxford English Dictionary describes a charity as ‘an organisation set up to provide help and raise money for those in need’ and according to the Charity Commission ’the guiding principal of charity law is that charities should be, and be seen to be, independent from party politics.’ Robertson’s in-depth investigation of Reform has found that their power base rests almost entirely with the Conservative party. He says that Reform’s claim to independence is based on having one Liberal Democrat (Jeremy Browne) and two Labour members (Lord Warner and MP Frank Field) and a Conservative MP, (Julian Smith) on their advisory team. These however do not represent the overall dominance of the organisation towards the Conservative party, which can be seen by the power base of the founders and trustees and Reform doesn’t exist to give a voice to the voiceless, but is acting rather to leverage money from the public sector into the hands of the corporations, some of which just happen to be partners of the Reform ‘charity’.

The full article can be read here:http://sparaszczukster.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/reform-the-independent-think-tank-that-wants-us-to-think-its-a-charity-that-drives-the-thinking-behind-nhs-privatisation-backed-by-over-thirty-multinational-corporations/