Tuesday 28 August 2012

Brent Labour backs Central Middlesex campaign

Following a meeting between Cllr Krupesh Hirani and Cllr Muhammed Butt last weekend  three Brent NHS campaigners last week, Cllr James Denselow, Brent Labour Party's Communications Officer, has published the following statement:

Brent Labour fighting against the closure of Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency (A&E) services

Brent Labour Party has given its full support to the campaign against the Coalitions disgraceful plans. Labour Cllrs condemned the plans in the Council Chamber and have been working with campaigners to raise awareness of the issue. Both Cllr Butt and Cllr Hirani will address the march against the closures on 15th September.

However, the reason Brent has been unable to run a Council backed campaign against the closures is because unlike in Ealing, there is not cross party support for the campaign. Both the Lib Dems and Conservatives in Brent have refused to criticise the plans put forward by their own Government.

Cllrs from both parties should get behind the campaign so we can fight the plans as a united Borough.

List of action being taken:
1.       Motion passed but only with support from Brent Labour
2.       Letter to Secretary of State Andrew Lansley MP to come
3.       We are out on the doorstep every single weekend in Brent talking to residents on this issue
5.       We are meeting with campaigners
6.       Council will be responding to the consultation through scrutiny
7.       Brent Labour will be at the march
8.       Difficult case to use taxpayer resources for a campaign in cases where we do not have cross party agreement – that is why we the Brent Labour Party will be campaigning on this issue without taxpayer resources


Trevor said...

and I suppose this is meant to give hope to the long suffering public right?
well if so I would prefer to be without hope because I still remember the oh so optimistic words Labour used in 97 when they won the votes of the British public, only for those words to prove to be in vain and in my opinion worthless.
I don't believe @ all that Labour has the best interests of the public @ heart but instead this is just a clever attempt to give the impression that they care and sadly knowing how naive people then to be in this country they will probably believe it and ultimately give Labour what they desperately want which is to win back the trust and support of the British public.
and if they do will they get it right next time?
I doubt it very much indeed.
I recently spoke to Labour Councillor Micheal Pavey who actually asked me why I choose not to support the Labour Party?
I Had to be honest and frank in my response by saying that it was based on bitter experience.
I reminded him how long Labour has been around and that if they were up to the job they would show it in what they have done and what they do.
and having lived in Brent since my childhood I have not seen anything from Labour that has inspired confidence in them.
he responded by telling me that basically they need more time...I responded by saying that I think they have had more than enough time and that I have had enough of waiting for them to get it right.
they were given an opportunity in 97 and they blew it and now we are governed by a coalition that has left me in no doubt that they are fit for the political dustbin and I predict that that that is where the British voters will send them come the next general election.
this whole vote for us thing has become a unfunny joke and the reality is these people that act as the government are not running the country but are ruining it slowly but surely and in the meantime are exploiting us more and more and that has got to stop.

Martin Francis said...

I certainly have no illusions in Labour Trevor. I was briefly a member of the LP Young Socialists in Hammersmith but left in 1965. Our local MP then was Frank Tomney who was about as right-wing as you can get and stay in the Labour Party.

Certainly the Blair government continued Thatcher's work and set the course on PFI and privatisation of health and education that has been taken up by the Coalition.

However I do think there is scope for broad based community and cross party campaigns on issues such as Central Middlesex Hospital. In Hammersmith and Fulham there is all party support for keeping their local A&E. Brent Labour has been slow to act and only done it after pressure but surely better than them remaining silent and colluding in the loss of our local hospital.

A few months ago Cllr Shafique Choudhary asked me to join the Labour Party and 'help change it from within'. I said I couldn't join Labour because I was a socialist.

trevor said...

thanks for sharing your thoughts.
However I remain unconvinced that Labour has the best interests of the British public @ heart.
as you rightly mentioned "Certainly the Blair government continued Thatcher's work and set the course on PFI and privatisation of health and education that has been taken up by the Coalition".
and look @ the problems that has caused!
so you can hardly blame me for the way I feel now regarding Labour.

Anonymous said...

I think that Brent Labour has picked the wrong battle, and they are not acting in the best interests of residents.

There is nothing progressive in having too many A&E departments in London, although you could argue that Northwick Park and Central Middlesex should both stay open, and OTHER A&Es should close instead. But then, which ones?

We should close about half of London’s A&Es, replacing them with 24-hour treatment centres for walk-in minor injuries. We can demand they are properly-funded, in state control - but they should not receive ambulance cases.

The surviving, bigger A&E hospitals will allow doctors to gain greater experience, with constantly-staffed diagnostic equipment available around the clock, and with consultants immediately available, even at weekends. Clinical outcomes will improve, and fewer of us will die.

The most important survival factor is the arrival of an ambulance, since paramedics can stabilize patients. Road journeys that then take, say, 15 minutes longer, to a bigger hospital, are of less importance. Arrival delays for ambulances should be the basis of Labour party campaigns, not where the A&Es are.

Visiting a relative who is improving, after your own long and inconvenient road journey, is better news than a more local trip to see them in a small hospital’s mortuary.

By all means debate WHICH hospital A&Es should close, but the advantage of large emergency hospitals is established world-wide. Not every change is motivated by budget cuts, but it is a pity that the A&E changes weren’t made in the boom years, due to cowardness by all our politicians.

John Cox