Home » Posts tagged 'Alan Johnson'
Tag Archives: Alan Johnson
We must ensure that nobody will ever again be afraid to ask for medical treatment
We really do have to get rid of this Tory government and replace it with a Labour government different from any other. This story (see link below) about asylum seekers being afraid to get NHS treatment is just one of many reasons. Asylum seekers are afraid of being presented with a bill they have no means of paying, and they are afraid of the Home Office. The groundwork was laid for such fears a good number of years ago by governments of all stripes. A Labour Health Secretary was one who helped. At the end of my research into the treatment of asylum seekers, which I finished in 2010,[1] I wrote this in the wake of the news that an asylum seeker had been refused cancer treatment:
On 30 March 2009 the UK Court of Appeal ruled that failed asylum seekers were not entitled to free National Health Service treatment in England, overruling an earlier High Court ruling that they were. One exception was allowed: if an asylum seeker cannot return home and cannot pay in advance hospitals must consider treatment, but they were at the mercy of the discretion of the hospital. Lord Justice Ward expressed his views on failed asylum seekers clearly: they should not be here and should never have come in the first place. Health Secretary Alan Johnson was “pleased with the Court of Appeal’s judgment that asylum seekers cannot acquire ordinary resident status which would entitle them to treatment and a range of other services.”
When Jeremy Corbyn protests about a Tory statement or policy, the reply often comes back “Labour did the same thing.” Those of us in the Labour Party should always acknowledge the fact when it’s true and we will all have to make sure things are different next time by constantly holding Labour ministers to account. Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott has said clearly, when speaking of the Windrush scandal, “This will not happen when I am Home Secretary.” She will face strong opposition from Home Office officials who are currently enjoying the implementation of the “hostile environment”. We will have to support her, and support asylum seekers, in every way possible, against the pressures, not only of the Home Office establishment, but also of the Tories and their media. And it must never be the case again that vulnerable people are bullied so that they are afraid to ask for medical help. That, among many other reasons, is why I and thousands of other people joined or rejoined the Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader in 2015. We saw a different future.
Asylum seekers ‘too afraid’ to seek NHS care, report says
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/28/asylum-seekers-too-afraid-to-seek-nhs-care-report-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
[1] Dealt with on their Merits: https://hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:2678
Conflicting objectives?
Alan Johnson, my local MP, who ran Labour’s Remain campaign, blames Jeremy Corbyn for the Brexit vote. He says that Jeremy, or his “office”, “worked against the rest of the Party”, had “conflicting objectives” and had “undermined” the campaign. He offers no evidence. I replied on the Hull Daily Mail’s website today as follows:
“It would be useful to hear some analysis of the way the media marginalised the Labour case for staying. Jeremy was ignored by the mainstream media most of the time, as was Alan Johnson. Just the odd clip or specific comment, almost never a whole speech or extended quotes from their speeches. While the Boris Johnson/Gove v. Cameron show got full coverage, as did Farage’s every move. So the impression was that Labour wasn’t saying much, or was ‘lacklustre’. As for Jeremy’s office ‘working against the rest of the Party’, having ‘conflicting objectives’ and seeking to ‘undermine’ the campaign, you need to give examples, Alan, and say how, why and who. The consequences of just making and repeating accusations are disastrous. Especially when they make no sense.”
Here’s the original article:
Go, Jeremy!
According to The Guardian, “[Harriet Harman] has written to every Labour MP with the names of people in their constituency who have signed up as party members or registered as supporters since the election.” She “wants the MPs to report any of the new members or registered supporters who are members of other parties or are known troublemakers.”
Well, I’ve signed up as a supporter. I’m not a member of any other political party. I am, however, a known trouble-maker (ask my MP, Alan Johnson, who is, by the way, a known supporter of Yvette Cooper).
But Harriet is missing something important in all her talk of Labour under Jeremy being unelectable. The same Guardian story tells us: “Figures show that 20,000 new members and a further 21,000 registered supporters have signed up since nominations for the leadership closed.” If, as she seems to be implying, those thousands are Corbyn supporters, this surely means that Jeremy himself is very electable. These figures seem to show a kind of surge away from “they’re-all-the-same-ism” to a hope that Jeremy might not be an “all-the-same” person. Don’t you want an electable leader, Harriet?
Anyway, I invite Alan Johnson to check my credentials, revisit my emails, and send the results to Harriet. She will find that I was against (for example) all the wars since the Falklands, whether they were Tory wars or Labour wars; that I am against the jailing of asylum seekers (and their children), whether under Labour, Coalition or the present Tory government; against letting migrants drown in the Mediterranean or dogs being set on them in Calais; against the Welfare Bill; against austerity, either heavy or lite; and against the economic crisis being paid for by the poor rather than the bloated geniuses who caused it.
Go, Jeremy!
Here’s the Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/04/labour-must-end-the-madness-over-jeremy-corbyn-says-alan-johnson?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Stony silence ended – Alan Johnson replies
Alan Johnson has now replied to my email on TTIP. I have put the letter below, but here are a couple of points:
My first reaction on reading the letter was “and if not?”
Johnson seems to share concerns “about the impact that TTIP could have on public services – particularly the NHS.” He believes “the NHS should be exempt from the agreement and that the Government should now push for this exemption.”
And if not, Alan, what will you, the two Eds, Harriet and all your mates actually do?
He seems to share concerns that TTIP wants foreign investors to have the right to sue sovereign governments before ad hoc tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions. “I believe”, he says, “that governments should be able to legislate in the public interest and that this should be protected in any dispute resolution mechanisms.”
And if not?
Johnson also says, “It is … crucial … that the benefits of TTIP filter down to employees, small businesses and consumers …” – what’s it mean, “filter down”? It is apparently also crucial “that the deal is open and accountable …” “Open and accountable” is usually just jargon. It goes with (I’m surprised he didn’t use it) “transparent”. Once you’ve seen that word you know it’s going to be as opaque as can be. And remember, of course, that the negotiations are being held in secret, so that’s already a blow to openness, accountability and transparency. They’ve clearly started as they mean to go on, but he didn’t mention that.
But anyway – just in case I’m being too suspicious-minded – let me ask of these pious wishes too: and if not?
I think the answer is “If not – we won’t do anything.” After all he begins the letter by saying, “I support the principles behind TTIP – the free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the USA and the EU.” And he supports them because the EU and the USA “are, of course, the UK’s two largest markets …” It’s the market that’s crucial. That’s why the rest of the sentence isn’t worth the e-space it’s typed on, the bit about the benefits of TTIP (“removing trade barriers, boosting growth and creating jobs”). Because all promises of benefits – especially the creation of jobs – will be broken if market considerations dictate. Likewise any promise that governments will “be able to legislate in the public interest” without getting stamped on – sorry, taken to a tribunal!
He promises at the end of the letter to “continue to follow this issue closely”.
Us too, Alan.
Anyway, here’s the letter:
“Dear Mr Mouncer,
Thank you for your email and apologies that you did not receive a response to your original email, this was an oversight on my part.
Let me start by saying that I support the principles behind TTIP – the free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the USA and the EU. These are, of course, the UK’s two largest markets and I believe that TTIP has the potential to bring significant benefits, including removing trade barriers, boosting growth and creating jobs.
It is also crucial, though, that the benefits of TTIP filter down to employees, small businesses and consumers, that the deal is open and accountable and that it raises or at least maintains labour, consumer, environmental and safety standards.
I also share the concerns that many constituents have raised about the impact that TTIP could have on public services – particularly the NHS. I believe that the NHS and public services need to be more, not less, integrated and I am concerned at the worrying fragmentation of health services that is taking place under this Government. That is why I believe that the NHS should be exempt from the agreement and that the Government should now push for this exemption.
I know that there is also considerable concern about the proposed inclusion of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the TTIP deal. I believe that governments should be able to legislate in the public interest and that this should be protected in any dispute resolution mechanisms. I also believe there needs to be far greater transparency in this area and that while the EU Commission has recently instigated some welcome changes on this, they can and must go further.
I hope that the Government now listen and respond to these concerns and ensure that TTIP delivers the jobs, growth and fairer deal for consumers that we all want to see.
Thank you once again for writing to me and sharing your views. I can assure you that I will continue to follow this issue closely and bear in mind the points you raise.
Yours sincerely,
Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP”
A stony silence – but anyway let’s sign the petition
You may remember that I wrote to Alan Johnson (Labour MP for West Hull) nearly two months ago to ask him about Labour Party policy towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the secret deal being negotiated between the EU and the US. I pointed out that TTIP, though
“posing as a traditional trade agreement, has as its goal the removal of regulatory barriers which, even now, serve to protect us in a number of ways, e.g. with regard to workers’ rights, food safety rules, toxic chemical use, digital privacy laws and the banking safeguards introduced after 2008.”
Moreover, I told him, it “wants to open up public services and government procurement contracts to competition from multinational companies”, thus threatening “even more privatisation in areas such as health and education”. I asked him what Labour party policy would be on TTIP if it won the 2015 general election, and I suggested that “TTIP, and the secret negotiations to get it, should be abandoned entirely” (see my blog for the full letter: https://bobmouncerblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/secretly-negotiating-to-steal-whats-ours/).
So far I have received nowt but a stony silence from my parliamentary representative. Meanwhile, due to campaigns against it, the negotiators’ secrecy has been undermined (which must make them really cross). One such campaign is being waged by The People’s NHS, and it’s not hard to see why: the group points out that Slovakia (which has a similar deal) was sued for trying to nationalise part of its healthcare service while Australia is being sued for trying to introduce plain cigarette packets. The People’s NHS points out:
“If companies wanted to sue our government, they can do so in a secret court. There will be no public outcry about what they’re trying to do because in most cases, we won’t know it has happened until it’s too late. This deal is so secretive, and the consequences so potentially far-reaching, that the Guardian labelled it ‘a gunpowder plot against democracy’. If we don’t get this deal debated in the open, we may never know the full scale of the havoc it could wreak.”
So I’ve written to Alan Johnson asking for a reply. Meanwhile, let’s all sign the petition: http://action.peoplesnhs.org/eu-ttip-debate
Bob Mouncer's blog 