BNP PUBLIC SERVICES BULLETIN
JANUARY 8, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk




1. NHS SCANDAL AS 37,000 JOBS GO

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=995

LABOUR'S catastrophic mishandling of the NHS is laid
bare in a secret Government memo predicting a
crippling shortage of nurses, paltry payrises, posts
axed and strikes.

Politicians, medical bodies and unions said the leaked
document showed that the Government's management of
the health service is a 'fiasco.'

At least 37,000 posts are now thought to be in danger
this year alone as the Government desperately seeks to
lower the NHS wages bill with a 2.7 per cent cut in
the workforce.

And just weeks after health secretary Patricia Hewitt
said there were too many nurses in the NHS - which led
to a raft of job cuts - officials warned there will
now be a mass shortage of nurses by 2010.

To make matters worse, the cash crisis means ministers
may refuse proper payrises for staff which the
document says could trigger a strike.

And despite spending millions of pounds of taxpayers'
cash on training medics to become consultants, the NHS
will be too cash-strapped to pay more than 3,000 of
them.

The leaked document, which was given to the Health
Service Journal, shows that by 2010 there will be:

* A shortage of 14,000 nurses.

* A shortage of 1,200 GP’s and 1,100 junior doctors.

* Some 3,200 hospital consultant positions shelved
because the NHS will not be able to pay them.

* An excess of 16,200 health professionals and
technicians.

The draft strategy also shows the Government intends
to make the job security of being an NHS employee a
thing of the past, with officials admitting
unemployment can be used to 'create a downward
pressure on wages'.

The document provoked a furious backlash from the
health industry which said the Government had lost
control of the NHS.

Janet Davies, for the Royal College of Nursing, was
among those who slammed ministers for allowing posts
to be axed by debt-ridden trusts.

'Just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for
Health told MPs that the NHS had employed too many
nurses but now her department have evidence predicting
a shortage of 14,000 nurses within the next four
years,' she said.

'And all this at a time when nurses are being made
redundant, newly qualified nurses can’t find work and
thousands of NHS posts are being lost up and down the
country.'

Doctors’ leaders were equally furious, complaining
that targets on waiting times had only been met by
employing more hospital consultants to carry out the
work.

Refusing to employ doctors in the top positions after
some of these targets have been achieved was 'absurd'.

Dr Jonathan Fielden, Chairman of the BMA’s
consultants’ committee said: 'It is absurd to suggest
that the NHS needs fewer hospital consultants.

'To suggest that there should be fewer consultants,
and of a lower grade, will destroy the gold standard
of specialist care that patients rightly deserve.

'If these really are the views of Department of Health
advisors, then they are seriously out of touch with
the NHS.

'They seem determined to destroy the ethos and values
of the NHS, which the profession and patients cherish
so dearly, and are so essential to its survival.'

The documents, written shortly before Christmas,
suggest that one solution to the current crisis would
be to prevent young doctors becoming consultants.

Instead a cheaper grade of staff, called a
'sub-consultant,' would be created.

It also suggests that hospital consultants, who were
given massive pay rises by the Government in 2005
which has caused much of the cash-flow problem, should
now receive just a one per cent rise.

Other NHS staff could receive a 'backloaded' payrise
which would not provide the full increase they expect
for three years.

And some nurses could have their salaries cut by
creating 'local' pay scales which would see nurses
paid according to the relative wealth of the area in
which they worked.

Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said that the
number of posts being lost in the NHS could be far
greater than previously thought.

“After Ministers rubbished claims of 20,000 job
losses, they now predict almost twice as many to go
this year,' he said.

'This latest fiasco in workforce planning is the
bleakest possible start to 2007 for the NHS.

“The financial crisis is now driving Government
policy. By cynically using the misery of unemployment
to cut pay in the NHS, Labour ministers are making
hard-working doctors and nurses pay for Governmental
incompetence. The effect on morale will be dire.

“NHS resources, and the responsibility for spending
them, need to be given to frontline staff so that they
can build a more effective NHS which responds to the
needs of its staff as well as to the needs of
patients.

'We can never again allow such a tragic failure of
central planning.”

A Department of Health spokesman said the NHS had to
accept that change was ahead.

'The NHS is at a turning point. In the past few years
the Government has invested huge amounts of money,
many more doctors and nurses have been employed,
waiting times have been cut dramatically and patient
care has improved.

'Over the next few years the NHS needs to consolidate
improvements in patient care, reduce waiting times to
a maximum of 18 weeks, respond to patient demand for
care closer to home and to become more efficient in
its use of resources.

'At the same time, growth in NHS funding will return
to more usual levels and the numbers of staff employed
by the NHS will stabilise.

'This work is at an early stage, and the ideas in the
paper are very much what any health expert would be
expecting the department to be considering.

'We have already been in discussion with unions and
other partners on the issues and we will of course
consult with stakeholders as the thinking develops.
Some of these ideas will be dropped and some will
become policy.'

* What do YOU think? Is the Government wrecking the
NHS? Comment NOW at Have Your Say.






2. HEALTH TOURISTS MAY DENY NHS PATIENTS KIDNEYS

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2534812,00.html

Health tourists are receiving free National Health Service kidney
treatment
worth about £30,000 a year, and potentially competing with British
patients
for scarce transplants, according to new data.

The information, released under the Freedom of Information Act, shows
that
one hospital is spending up to £1m a year on dialysis for nearly 40
non-British residents; another has placed two asylum seekers on its
waiting
list for transplants and a third has recovered only 2% of its costs from
overseas patients.

Doctors and patient groups say the NHS is struggling to provide kidney
dialysis for British patients and is ill-equipped to cope with the extra
demand.

They warned of an acute moral dilemma as doctors balance their
overriding
responsibility to help those in greatest need with the fact that the
patient
may not be legally entitled to treatment.

There are fears some foreign patients, so-called “health tourists”, may
travel to Britain to take advantage of free NHS care.

Dr Jonathan Kwan, head of renal services at Epsom and St Helier
hospitals
trust in Surrey, said: “Non-UK residents are putting pressure on the
system,
which is already under too much pressure.”

Kwan said British patients risked losing out to those from overseas who
needed treatment more urgently. “Patients waiting for dialysis may be
displaced by a clinically urgent case. Doctors try to prioritise the
urgent
cases irrespective of residency status.”

There are a record 6,000 patients on the kidney transplant waiting list,
with about 400 dying each year in Britain before an organ becomes
available.
Patient groups say some British sufferers are forced by a lack of
dialysis
machines to receive treatment at night.

While most health tourists seek one-off operations, patients suffering
from
kidney failure require dialysis three times a week for life unless given
a
transplant.

According to the figures, Barts and The London NHS Trust, which covers
two
of the largest hospitals in the capital, is providing 37 non-UK
residents
and an extra 14 asylum seekers with dialysis.

Two asylum seekers are on the kidney transplant waiting list at the
Royal
Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust in Reading.

Although trusts may try to invoice non-UK residents for treatment, they
usually recover only a fraction of the cost.

Asylum seekers are entitled to free treatment while their case is being
considered.

In the last financial year St George’s hospital in south London spent
about
£100,000 on dialysis for overseas patients but has recovered only
£2,100.

Timothy Statham, chief executive of The National Kidney Federation,
said:
“Capacity is at breaking point,” he said. “We have very ill British]
patients needing to dialyse through the night because there is not
sufficient capacity.

Some patients may come from abroad because dialysis was not available in
their country. We seem to be offering a world health service.”





3. EU BRAINWASHING IN SCHOOLS

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID
=1953121

THE EU has been accused of using underhand means in the classroom to try
to
'brainwash' British children into becoming enthusiastic supporters of
the
European project.

A new teaching pack on the EU has been introduced for use in Key Stage 3
and
4 'citizenship' classes that claims to offer a balanced view of the
organisation and its role.

The taxpayer-funded materials - available to schools in bulk and at no
cost
from the European Parliament's UK office - hail the effectiveness of EU
legislation on everything from smoking and workers' rights to
genetically
modified organisms and food labelling.

But Eurosceptics were up in arms last night about elements of the lesson
notes and pupil worksheets, which guide teachers and pupils in
'de-bunking'
the views of a man who is critical of a lack of democracy in the EU.

The UK Independence Party, which blew the whistle on the pack, also
attacked
the way the Eurosceptic character featured in the pupil worksheets -
'Portsmouth plumber Charlie Bolton' - is an ageing, white man who
contrasts
with other young, smiling, fresh-faced people.

Below a chart showing how the various institutions of the EU, such as
the
European Parliament and European Commission, interact, Charlie Bolton
says:
'Europe - it's just faceless bureaucrats - none of them elected.

'And they impose their laws on us from Brussels whenever they fancy. All
that red tape to make our lives harder.'

It then guides pupils to reject the notion that the EU is
anti-democratic by
reminding them of the elected European Parliament.

'Do you agree with Charlie? What does the flow chart tell you about how
laws
are made?' it asks.

The teacher is also instructed to show pupils how to counter his
argument
and to lead the pupils to conclude that he is wrong and that the EU is
democratic.

The lesson plan reads: 'Discuss Charlie Bolton's attitude to EU
legislation.
If Charlie knew that the Members of the European Parliament are elected
and
that the Council of Ministers represents our governments, do the
students
think that he would change his mind?'

Yorkshire's UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom hit out last night at the pack,
branding
it 'bias and propaganda, masquerading as neutral fact'.

'At a time when the Government has been downplaying Britain's history
and
political traditions in our schools, taxpayers are instead forced to pay
for
our children to learn EU systems,' he said.

'Given that up to 75 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, I
suppose it does make some sense, but I am sure that most parents would
want
their children to learn our political systems and institutions rather
those
that are being imposed upon us.

'It is obvious that the EU has given up on persuading the grown ups, so
now
they have started on the children.'

Shipley's Tory MP Philip Davies, spokesman for the Better Off Out
campaign,
added: 'The EU gets more like the Soviet Union every day when it resorts
to
brainwashing children.

'All it does is confirm my worst fears.

'But it's not just Charlie Bolton who's sick of the EU - opinion polls
show
that more and more people are fed up with membership and now a majority
of
businesses are against it.

'It smacks of utter desperation on their part because they know they've
been
rumbled.'

The European Parliament insists that the pack is impartial and that it
helps
pupils make their own minds up about the EU.

'The resources have been designed to offer a balanced introduction to
the
European Union and the European Parliament, to encourage students to
take
part in discussion and to form their own view on the subjects covered in
the
resources,' say the officials responsible for the pack.







4. EU FORCES AMBULANCES TO WAIT FOR TEA

http://www.brighousetoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=986&ArticleI
D=19

Ambulance crews in Brighouse could be forced to finish their tea breaks
before turning out on an emergency call thanks to new EU rules.

Staff working at ambulance stations in West Yorkshire are among those
who
will be affected by the changes which staff have described as 'madness'.
If
paramedics receive a call to a road traffic accident or someone taken
ill at
their home the new rules mean they are officially supposed to complete
their
meal break before responding to the emergency call.

Paramedics in other parts of the country where the new ruling has been
adopted have warned lives will be lost.

In some parts of the country ambulance services have opted out of the
European Working Time Directive that enforces breaks. If a major
accident
happened outside an ambulance station and staff were on the first part
of
their meal break it would technically mean they could not be asked to
help.

Operations director for Yorkshire Ambulance Service, John Darley, said a
letter was sent out to all front line staff at the beginning of December
informing them of changes to rotas and meal breaks.

'These changes are aimed at unifying the staff in North, East, South and
West Yorkshire who joined together on July 1, 2006 when Yorkshire
Ambulance
Service - YAS was formed.

'Only West and South Yorkshire staff will be affected by the rota or
meal
break changes - with a protected meal break being introduced for the
first
time in West Yorkshire. Staff in North and East Yorkshire will continue
with
their current rota and meal break arrangements,' he said.

But John Durkin, GMB branch secretary for YAS, said the aim of the
ambulance
service was to save lives and he felt professionalism would outweigh the
new
ruling.

'Brighouse is very fortunate to have professional staff whose main aim
is to
help people,' said Mr Durkin.

He said the meal break issue was among other changes currently being
discussed.
Just days before Christmas hundreds of ambulance workers were warned of
possible redundancies in the Yorkshire area.

Around 400 staff working for YAS were told of changes that were being
made
to ensure a more efficient service. But Mr Durkin said the changes would
have a knock on effect on patient care. He criticised the service for
its
'insensitive'
handling of the situation which he said had been done without any
consultation.
'The staff who are affected back up the front line workers. It will
affect
patient care,' he said.




5. WE WANT OUR BUSES BACK

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2007/468/index.html?id=np4.htm

We Want Our Buses Back (WWOBB) campaigners will be on the march again in
Sheffield, on Saturday 6 January, protesting against bus fare rises. The
main South Yorkshire operator, First, are increasing fares by as much as
14% on the Day Saver - after four rounds of fare rises already in
2004-05.
Alistair Tice Sheffield

It's not just in Sheffield. Since Thatcher's de-regulation of the bus
industry in 1987, fares have gone up in real terms by around 50%
nationally and by nearly 100% in the metropolitan areas!

This latest increase was announced in December, the same month that the
government published its proposals for bus services - ironically
entitled 'Putting Passengers First'.

The only policy that New Labour puts first is: 'This has nothing to do
with nationalisation. The bus industry will remain privately owned.'
(Page 34 of the proposal document).

This reassurance to the 'Big Five' bus companies (First, Stagecoach,
Arriva, National Express and Go-Ahead) that monopolise 80% of services,
comes after 33 pages of statistics which add up to a damning indictment
of deregulation and privatisation.

Only 4% of services are subject to direct competition! Bus patronage
fell by 18% in the decade after deregulation and continues to decline in
the majority of England (outside London). In the last ten years there
has been a 9% cut in commercially run services. There is a vicious
circle of fare rises, cuts in services, falling passenger numbers and
rising costs (i.e. falling profits) leading to more fare rises and cuts
in services.

There will be a short-term increase in bus usage in the next few years
due to the introduction of free fares for the elderly and disabled but
the 'inexorable decline' is expected to continue after 2010-11.

This is despite public subsidies accounting for half the bus industry's
annual turnover! By next year, public subsidies, from central and local
government, will have increased by 150% under New Labour - from £1
billion to £2.5 billion. This is through the 80% rebate on bus
operators' fuel duty, supported services, concessionary fares and
capital spending on infrastructure such as interchanges, shelters and
bus corridors.

Deregulation has been a bonanza for the private sector. The Big Five
have carved up the industry, slashed jobs and wages and massively
increased their profits. FirstBus UK made £110 million profit last year,
returning £23 million straight back to the fat-cat shareholders and
promising a 10% annual increase in dividends. And this is being funded
by us - through our bus fares and taxes.

The government is determined that this rip-off will continue. They are
only proposing to tinker with their own Transport Act 2000 by supposedly
making it easier for Passenger Transport Authorities to apply for
'Quality Contracts' (a form of regulation similar to London). But New
Labour still insists that 'the legitimate interests of the bus
operators' (i.e. profits) must be safeguarded, even suggesting they help
draw up the contract specifications before bidding for them!

Clearly there is no solution to the problems of public transport,
congestion and pollution on the basis of deregulation and 'Profit First'
companies. Rather than subsidising the Big Five's profits, we must
campaign for the regulation of bus services under democratic local
control and renationalisation of all public transport (buses, trains and
trams) so that it can be integrated and planned to really put passengers
first.




6. WORKING-CLASS PUPILS BENEFIT MOST FROM SELECTIVE EDUCATION

Further proof that the liberal establishment's hatred of grammar schools
is NOT about equality: it's about turning the mass population into dumb
docile sheep who can be pushed around by liberal politicians. Grammar
schools are the best avenue of upward mobility the British working class
has -- which is why the BNP pledges to restore all those that have been
closed, and open them in every community that wants them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/02/do
0201.xml

There are three problems with our schools. We are failing to give an
excellent education to cleverer boys and girls. We are failing to give a
sound basic education to less able pupils, especially in deprived areas.
And we are failing to stimulate the social mobility that good education
makes possible. Your educational chances, and your life chances, depend
too much on where you live.

The Government's City Academy programme attempts to address the problem
of the underprivileged areas. It is expensive and unproven. Sadly, money
and buildings do not solve all educational problems. We can expect
successes and failures.

On the other two problems, the Government's silence is deafening. Yet in
the 21st century, Britain cannot afford to educate its people less well
than the best in other countries. It is a personal tragedy as well as a
national loss when many of our best youngsters are not helped to fulfill
their potential. We have to educate everyone well if we are to compete
with the rest of the developed world and the emerging economies of the
East.
advertisement

We have some very good individual schools, including some good
comprehensives, but the system as a whole simply does not achieve
enough. International results put Britain so far down the league tables
that it must be time to look at another way of doing things. Between
2000 and 2003, for instance, the OECD's Programme for International
Student Assessment (Pisa) showed the UK slipping from fourth to 11th in
science and from eighth to 18th in maths. However, there was one
dazzlingly good result: when Pisa divided state schools from the private
sector in 31 developed countries, our independent schools came top of
the 62 groups.

So if Britain is running the best schools in the world, why are we not
also running the best state schools? I think, after 46 years in and
around teaching, that I know the answer. An outworn ideology prevents
the country from learning from the successful model in its midst.

One of the most important lessons is that independent schools are
schools of choice. They deal with reasonably willing pupils, with
teachers who care about their subjects and their students, and with
parents who are supportive. Independent schools are, in the real sense
of the word, selective: the parents select the school and the school
selects their sons and daughters.

Where selection remains in the state system – in those English counties
which have fought to retain grammar schools, and particularly in
Northern Ireland – we can see its value. Their results show that
selection works better, not just for the very able, but for the student
body as a whole. In Northern Ireland, 10 per cent more pupils achieve
five A*-C grades at GCSE than in England, and 30 per cent of A-level
papers get an A grade compared to 22 per cent in England. That makes the
Government's recent legislation intended to abolish selection in
Northern Ireland particularly regrettable.

But education is about much more than just exam results – and as well
outperforming the rest of the UK in tests, Northern Ireland also
provides the model for what a selective system can achieve for social
mobility. There, 42 per cent of university entrants come from less
privileged backgrounds, compared to only 28 per cent in England.

The concentration of our remaining grammar schools in a small number of
mostly higher-income areas means that many able children from poor
families miss out on the opportunities selective education can provide.
Yet it is the poor who benefit most from access to grammar schools.
Recent research from the University of Bristol compared the results of
selective and non-selective LEAs. While the average level of attainment
was not significantly higher, the minority of children from poor
families who made it to grammar schools did 'exceptionally well',
bumping up their average GCSE scores by seven or eight points –
equivalent to converting their grades from Bs to As. This compared to a
four-point uplift for grammar-school pupils as a whole.

There is a way of extending these opportunities to pupils from all
backgrounds in every part of the United Kingdom. It is not a case of
reverting to the 11-plus, nor of creating a few good schools for the
academically able and forgetting about the rest. A pamphlet published
this week by the Centre for Policy Studies (www.cps.org.uk), Three
Cheers for Selection: How Grammar Schools Help the Poor, proposes a
selective system which would free schools to choose their students;
which would offer ladders of opportunity to clever boys and girls from
deprived areas; and which would create a national network of specialist
academic schools.

This is the debate we should be having: not a debate about whether or
not to select, but on how to do it. Selection is unmentionable in
political circles only because it is a synonym for the 11-plus. I would
not want to go back to that. We should be debating more flexible methods
of how best to choose pupils for schools and when.

Almost everyone – except the lunatic fringe that would like university
places decided by lottery – accepts selection at 18. But since good
students have fallen by the wayside by then, what about 16, or 14? Why
is it all right to select pupils for 'Gifted and Talented' programmes at
a much younger age (and even to offer vouchers to the top 10 per cent,
as the schools minister Lord Adonis proposes), but not to select them
for particular schools? Why can specialist schools select 10 per cent of
their intake for being good at languages or general studies, but not
because they may be clever?

New polling undertaken by ICM for the Centre for Policy Studies shows
that the public is no longer in agreement with the politicians. Despite
the years of public argument against selection, the majority favour it.
The idea that more academic children maximise their potential through
streaming, or by attending selective schools, is backed by 76 per cent
of the public – and 73 per cent believe that this applies to less
academic children, too. Even if the majority would still opt for a
mixed-ability school for their own children, as many as 40 per cent
would now choose a selective school if it was on offer. More than 50 per
cent were in favour of schools being set free to choose their pupils by
a mix of exams, interviews and head teachers' recommendations.

The 40-year experiment with comprehensive education has failed. It was
meant to provide, in Harold Wilson's words, 'grammar schools for all',
and to lead to increased social mobility. It has done neither. It has
not raised standards – and, as the Sutton Trust has recently shown, we
now have a less mobile society than in the 1950s and 1960s.

In effect, selection by ability has been replaced by selection by
neighbourhood. That is neither sensible, nor egalitarian. It is time to
rid ourselves of an outworn dogma and explore practical ways of making
our schools as good as we can make them.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]