WhirledView

As the earth beneath their feet begins to crumble

By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent

29 March 2012.  London. David Cameron’s government has not been able to buy a decent headline since the Chancellor announced the 2012 budget.   It may be the momentum has shifted against the UK’s “teflon” Prime Minister - both across a formerly friendly press and in the polls.  The situation raises a serious question for the United States.

Polls

Polls already show what may be as much as a 12 point shift from Conservatives to Labour. One poll, results published 28 March, even shows Labour now leading both Coalition partners together.    

It may be premature to declare this The big shift. Even if it is a factual change it may be transient.

But it doesn’t feel transient. The pundits are not treating it as transient.  Pollsters have not yet disclosed the specifics pertaining to undecided voters, but I would bet a small lunch that the figures show a possible shift from undecided to decided.  Perchance the Prime Minister failed to notice, the media helpfully reminded him.   

Tory Treasurer Cruddas and “dining for donors”

Even as the government reeled from the initial budget reaction, another story broke that must have felt like a body blow.  The Sunday Times “stung” the Tory Party Treasurer, secretly taping him offering influence and a private dinner with Mr. and Mrs. Cameron in Number 10 in exchange for big bucks. Cameron offered this perk to persons he thought were lobbyists serving big donors.  The Daily Mail seemed especially fascinated by this news, carrying Cruddas promise that the deal would be “awesome” for the presumed lobbyists' businesses,  the subsequent resignation of Cruddas  and, in case anyone missed it, the guest list of those who had dined.   

Reaction was swift and severe. Labour predictably called for an independent inquiry. Channel 4’s Cathy Newman brilliantly cross examined a shifty-eyed Tory spokesman, Michael Fallon. I have little doubt he left the camera feeling like he had just endured a frontal lobotomy without anesthetic. The conservative Daily Telegraph unequivocally condemned the questionable practice.   I can reveal that an e-petition has been filed seeking a Commons debate on the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor, and funding of an office to investigate not only Cruddas but several different allegations of ministerial misconduct lodged against several Cabinet Ministers. 

VAT on heated Pasties

The government couldn’t even catch a break on “pasty-gate.”  Among the hidden nuggets I predicted would emerge it emerged this week that the budget subjects the Cornish folk food, pasties, to VAT if served heated.   How the provision will work has caused confusion the helpful have tried to clear up and provoked threats of litigation from a food chain.   The Daily Mail chuckled that all sorts of politicians had become born again pasty lovers.   The Telegraph went after Osborne.    Litigation from an interested retailer and amusement/bemusement in the press aside, the newly revealed application of VAT buried in the budget also brought considerable heat on the Chancellor, highlighted by both the Independent  and the Guardian.  

Fuel Transporters Strike

The bad news cycle continued with press reaction to the Government’s handling of a) negotiations with the Unite Union over wages, benefits, and working conditions for drivers, and b) a possible fuel transporters strike looming in the future.  Although no strike has been called (and the Union must give 7 days notice before doing so), Cabinet Secretary and negotiator Francis Maude recommended car drivers top up and even keep a spare can of petrol on hand in case of strike.  The Government also unveiled plans to order the Army to substitute for drivers in the event of a strike. 

If the idea was to bring pressure on the Union, it backfired. Retailers accused the government of intending to create a crisis in order to solve it.  Drivers took up Maude’s advice with the result pumps went dry and fuel prices soared as drivers panicked.   Jon Snow added that of the government's David Hendry to Channel 4's collection of lobotomized brains. 

Amid assessment the government’s gambit had gone horribly wrong, the government admitted Maude had made a mistake.  In case the government had missed the connection between the coverage of the pasty affair and the strike, the Sun helpfully connected the dots.   

Deficit

Pasties and silly PR in advance of a possible strike may be more symbolic than substantive, but they are the kind of symbolic issues that pave the way for the press and voters alike to look differently at the substantive issues.  One of these is the deficit. 

The government’s austerity programme was supposed to be worth the pain because it would bring the deficit into line.  But it is clear from the budget detail that the government would have had to admit that, 2 years in, the austerity programme has failed to solve the deficit had the Chancellor not penciled in £10 billion in to-be-determined further reduction to welfare, and a more than £2 billion raid on the reserve fund for Afghanistan that appeared suddenly in the budget announcement last week, and a £.5 billion “crawl-back” of funds from the NHS budget.    

Each in their own way the failure of the government to solve the deficit were made clear by This Is Money, the Guardian, and the Telegraph in two articles.  

GDP

The economy is another such issue. And here too the news cycle was not kind to the hither-to-fore teflon Prime Minister.   The BBC and Metro announced the glum news. The nation’s GDP shrank more than expected in the last quarter of last year.  For those who did not understand, the Guardian made it clear. The UK economy is sick.

Despite the advice or public concurrence of numerous “experts,” the Bank of England, the OECD, and the IMF, UK’s austerity and privatization have failed both to appreciably claw back the deficit or dig the economy out from its hole. In fact, austerity seems to have only made it worse.  

Which brings us to the US 

In two previous articles I pointed out that the US, through its involvement in the IMF, has been promoting the European Plan adopted also by the UK.  I questioned not only the wisdom of the plan but of the hypocrisy of the US promoting that plan for Europe while rejecting it for the US.  

That the US continues to do so now is particularly perplexing. Not only has the US resolutely refused to institute such a programme for itself, but the evidence mounts the US is right. The US economy is doing better than Europe’s. In fact, only one nation in Europe seems to be growing significantly, and it is the one country that rejected the European Plan, Iceland. The Eurozone appears headed for recession. I argue the UK already is in recession. Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy- the tales are all of gnashing of teeth and pain of almost Biblical proportions. 

So, is it US policy that Europe should fail in order for the US to succeed? Althouth I do worry about certain trans-Atlantic "partnership" organizations, I suspect such suspicions give the US too much credit for strategic thinking, at least on this issue. The partners may be capable of it, but that does not mean the US is doing it with the economic issue.

But it is perplexing.  

Also perplexing is the US relationship with the UK.  The week prior to the budget announcement President Obama feted Prime Minister David Cameron in what the press in Britain described as a love fest. To me it sounded more like, the family that kills together stays together.  

Or is it, sticks together? It was just days later the Chancellor announced the surprise move to raid the Afghanistan reserve, taking over £2 billion off the deficit he would otherwise have had to declare. Was this a case of friends helping friends?

The last thing the US needs is for Europe and the UK to one day conclude that the US sandbagged their economies in order to preserve its own. The US already has too many who view the US that way.   

I am not one of them.  But it does beg the question, what is the US doing in Europe. It also leads to a very serious question for the US.   It may be a premature assessment, but it seems to me the British press and voters may have figured out the Coalition.  As the earth beneath their feet begins to crumble, has the US? 

 

Santa Fe World Affairs Forum - Global Unrest Symposium April 16-17, 2012

April 1 Update

The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum

Join us on April 16 to 17,2012 for A Two Day Symposium on Global Unrest

Most recent commentary on the state of the world deals with revolution in one country or turmoil in a single geographic or cultural area.  The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum believes that it is time to examine these challenges and upheavals as part of a global phenomenon.  A SFWAF symposium to be held at St. John’s College on April 16-17 will look at the clash between change and status quo in Europe, China, Russia, and Mexico.  The symposium, co-sponsored with the University of New Mexico Center for Science, Technology and Policy, will provide for ample interaction between speakers and attendees.

The featured speakers for this symposium are:

EUROPE: Dr. Dieter Dettke, currently Foreign and Defense Policy Professor, Security Studies Program, Georgetown University, previously Executive Director for the US and Canada, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and staff director for the US-German Committee in the Bundestag, will help us understand a continent-wide social, political and economic flux. 

Ms. Teri Schultz, freelance international reporter for NPR and CBS News Radio and EU correspondent for Global Post will discuss the financial crash that threatens more than Europe’s image of unity.

RUSSIA: Dr. Raymond R. Smith, University of North Texas (Dallas) and former State Department political analyst is a specialist in Russian affairs.  Smith, author of Negotiating with the Soviets and The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats, will explore this question: “Is 21st Century Russia Doomed to be Authoritarian, Unlikeable and Threatening?”

CHINA: Dr. Douglas Spelman, former State Department China expert, now Deputy Director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D. C., will focus on  “China’s Rise: Promise or Problem?”

MEXICO: Dr. Lois Meyer, linguist and professor, School of Education, University of New Mexico, and author of the book New World of Indigenous Resistance, will explore the effects of globalization on indigenous resistance movements in Mexico and the Americas.

The Symposium, which takes place at St. John's College in Santa Fe, opens at 2:00 on Monday, April 16 with registration, the presentations on Europe and a welcome reception. The Symposium resumes with morning and afternoon sessions on Tuesday, April 17.  Admission fee of $65 for members and $80 for non-members includes the welcome reception, morning pastries, lunch, coffee/tea and refreshments.

St. John’s College, the University of New Mexico Latin American and Iberian Institute,  the Albuquerque Council for International Visitors, the International Studies Institute (ISI) at the University of New Mexico, the Albuquerque Committee on Foreign Relations (ACFR) and the  the New Mexico Chapter of the Fulbright Associationare are partner organizations for this symposium.

TO REGISTER:  Send an email to [email protected] and include your organizational affiliation.  You may pay with your credit card using our Paypal account. You can access Paypal directly by clicking on this link or send your check to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum, PO Box 31965, Santa Fe. NM,87594.  Checks should be made out to The Santa Fe World Affairs Forum.  To help keep our records straight please note on your check that it is for the April 16-17 Symposium.  If you are a member of a cosponsoring or partner organization which makes you eligible for member rates please also so note. Your payment guarantees you a place, but it is non-refundable after Tuesday, April 10 if you are unable to attend.  Reservations will be taken on a first come, first serve basis.

It is also possible to register only for the Monday session about Europe ($40) or the longer Tuesday session about China, Russia and Mexico ($50).

For information on Santa Fe accommodations please click here for the link to the Santa Fe Convention Bureau's listings.

For additional symposium information, please e-mail us at [email protected]

 

California: The Greece of the US?

 By Wendi Maxwell, Guest Contributor

Wendi Maxwell brings personal insight and occasional stories from California. Maxwell is a former policy maker for California adult literacy projects.This is the second in a series about municipal bankruptcy in California.

My city, Stockton California, is beginning mediation with its creditors to try to forestall becoming the biggest city in the US to declare bankruptcy. Stockton’s financial crisis didn’t just come along overnight, and we’re not the only California municipality facing possible bankruptcy. Here in town, as we proceed, the questions on everyone’s lips are “How did this happen?” and “Who’s to blame?”

Recent articles in The Record (Stockton’s daily newspaper) list the major decisions that impact our recent finances. Four costly decisions center on retirement and health care benefits. Three are bonds for redevelopment projects, including the sports arena, ballpark, and marina. At the time, these decisions provided a sense of excitement. A few years later though, we all mourn the results of these financial decisions.    

But our city is not unique in having invested in infrastructure projects during the boom times, nor are we unique in investing in strong wages and benefits for our employees. Cities all over California, and across the nation, face similar problems.

Financial trouble all over the US

Before we use our 20/20 hindsight to condemn any decisions made in the past, let’s remember the financial climate in the state, and the US in general. During the early years of this twenty-first century, the world was awash in money. Stocks and bonds were skyrocketing; housing prices increased by double, then three times their purchase price. Construction and property sales were booming; tax revenues were pouring in. Nationally, we increased debt like there was no tomorrow. At the state level, we did the same thing. And in Stockton, we simply followed everyone else’s lead. Surprisingly, no one predicted an end to the prosperity.

Michael Lewis, in his recent book “Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World” traces the financial health of American states. Between 2002 and 2008, the US spent as freely as its residents, (who bought new houses, then when the value increased, got a second mortgage so they could buy a new car). States and cities did the same thing. Indebtedness across the US doubled, and spending grew by two-thirds. States also systematically underfunded their pension plans, depending on stock market growth to fuel future-funding for pensions. When the stock market dropped, pension plans dropped accordingly. Even though the Federal Reserve promised to keep interest rates at zero, states continued to build in an eight percent growth factor for their pension plans. And a few years later – guess what? There’s not enough money to fulfill the pension obligations. 

The day the music died from Chancellor's hidden "Granny Tax"

By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent

21 March 2012.  The Coalition crossed the line over which it had teetered for weeks. That line is the public's tolerance for spin.

On 21 March 2012, the Chancellor presented the annual budget review. In the new budget the Coalition made multiple changes in tax rate. The net effect of the details will be analyzed and argued for weeks to come.   

But the headlines 22 March 2012 were generally brutally direct. One paper, The Star, provided the Coalition the headline it would have wanted (2 million will receive tax reductions).  Others looked past a typically £220 annual tax reduction from what in the US would be called fiddling with the brackets. They focused instead upon the alleged  funding of the Coalition's elimination of the nation's highest tax rate (50p on the pound) for the best off by reducing benefits to the retired. The papers which blasted the headline comparison, dubbed the “Granny Tax,” included the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express and the Sun, papers not often untied by a viewpoint. The Sun was particularly brutal. Even the more restrained Times headlined it as the Chancellor’s 50p “gamble.”    

In evaluating the severity of press reaction, one of Andrew Neil’s guests on the 22 March BBC daily politics show sniffed it was typical of the Conservative press to distance themselves from the Conservatives mid Parliament only to come together with them at the general election. But the respected Neil, former editor of the Times, opined that he could not remember a budget so widely and severely panned by the press, and BBC political correspondent Norman Smith hazarded the opinion that the Granny Tax headline had the soundings of a spin that would “take” over time.

As one who became a Republican a generation ago for the reasons many moderate Republicans still do,  I think the first pundit misguages the reaction.  Moderate "conservatives" cherish fiscal responsibility and integrity, not lining the pockets of rich "friends."  It will have been a mistake if the Coalition has taken the support of such moderates for granted. 

Moreover, as pointed out by BBC’s Norman Smith, the reaction is only beginning to unfold. The press and public are only beginning to digest and understand the budget details.  Already it is clear that the discrepancies within the budget are far more profound and disturbing than even the headlines indicated. Channel 4 News pointed that out the night of 21 March. And the Daily Mail online had begun the analysis by 22 March.  

Hiding the hit on pensioners

During the BBC Daily Politics Show 22 March, presenter Andrew Neil ruthlessly and thoroughly exposed some of these discrepancy, shredding both a Tory and a Liberal Democrat MP, exposing how little of the budget detail these MP's knew.  Neil repeatedly exposed the disguised nature of the announcement that hid the hit on the pensioners. He pointed out that one of the features in the press reaction may well have been the covert handling of the hit on the pensioners, disguised in the advance publicity and Chancellor’s descriptions as “tax simplification.”  Coverage in the Daily Telegraph that day seemed to underscore Neil's observations.  

SYRIA: WHY RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE APPLYING THE BRAKES

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

From any normal human point of view, the disinclination of Russia and China to enthusiastically join efforts to restrain Bashar Assad from his slaughter fest is incomprehensible.  So far as I can tell, not even the most horrified foreign leaders are eager to put boots on the ground or even to provide the degree of assistance that Libyan rebels received, but China and Russia are not ready for serious jaw-boning, either. Nor have they joined the chorus suggesting that Assad and his family might seek a cozy retirement site. If recently leaked emails are authentic, the Assads would settle for nothing less than world class luxury aka life among the global 1%.  Bribing the unjust with chateaux leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, but it’s a time honored way to dislodge tyrants with minimal loss of life.

Meanwhile, what a bonus for the enablers!  While supporting a brutal dictatorship, China and Russia  masquerade as global  good citizens upholding long understood principles of international law.

Yes, a state is allowed to protect itself from most civil unrest and to defend itself from external threat. But only up to a point, in each case. 

The Assad regime claims to be restoring peace and stability by neutralizing “armed gangs” beholden to outside forces. When restoring order requires the scale of destruction we’ve seen in Homs, including day-after-day blanket shelling of residential areas followed by the systematic house-to-house slaughter of survivors, it’s probably safe to say the regime  has lost its legitimacy.  At this point what’s labeled unrest more closely resembles revolution, To date, in Syria, nearly 10,000 people have been killed, and yet unarmed civilians continue to take to the streets in their thousands at the risk of being picked off by snipers stationed on roof tops. Individual soldiers and even whole units of the army have joined the rebels.  So have some high ranking officers and even a minister in the Assad government.  It seems a shame that many more people will have to die before Bashar finally admits that his day at the top is over.

Yes, external meddling in the internal affairs of a country is normally to be deplored and resisted.  The sovereignty argument has always made considerable sense because international neighbors, if bigger and stronger, tend to be greedy and aggressive. So it might be argued that China and Russia are taking the high road in respecting Syria’s sovereignty.  However, the genocides and other brutalities of the twentieth century have given rise to an important sovereignty-trumping principle. It is known as the “responsibility to protect,” which means that rulers do not have carte blanche in terrorizing their own citizens. When external interference prevents internal massacre, it is not judged to be a classic invasion of sovereignty. The Assad regime, it would seem, has set itself up for some meddling, to put it mildly.

Unfortunately for the rebels, Syria is not Libya.  Syria is a heavily populated country.  It is well institutionalized and the regime controls all subordinate centers of power, including a very large army officered  by members of the minority Alowite sect to which the Assads belong.  

This brings us to the problem of minorities in Syria, most of whom, it's argued, continue to support the secular-minded  Assad regime.  Syrian Christians have no doubt noted that the Coptics in Egypt fared better under Mubarak than they seem to be doing now.  Alowites may fear the sort of retalitory maltreatment that Sunnis are presently suffering in Iraq.  The Asad regime may be brutal, but it is an equal opportunity oppressor, which is a grudging way of recognizing its relative tolerance for minorities.  The U.S. Constitution's  Bill of Rights protects minorities from the tyrrany of the majority.  As the aftermath of the Arab spring indicates, tolerance doesn't always come automatically with democracy.

Minorities' not unfounded fear of repression gives some altruistic cover to the Chinese and Russian tenderness toward the Assad regime, but other motives for their behavior are no doubt more persuasive.  Neither country is governed by figures who find it convenient to respect the will of the people.  Russia’s Vladimir Putin maintains his hold on power by manipulating elections, curbing the media, jailing opponents and breaking up demonstrations before they get too large and enthusiastic.  China tolerates absolutely no debate or street activity at all.  What’s more, both regimes rigorously suppress the political and cultural demands of their ethnic and religious minorities, especially those who happen to form majorities in ancestral territories with historic claims to independence.  Like Homs, Chechnya was ravaged to keep it Russian; brutality keeps it Russian.  Suppression of protest over cultural genocide in Tibet is so complete that an increasing number of monks have resorted to setting themslves aflame, although Tibetan Buddhism does not encourage such acts.  Meanwhile, Beijing floods Tibet with Han Chinese in order to reduce Tibetans to a minority in what was once their own country.  (The Soviets did the same in the Baltic states, which has led to many complications for the post-Communist governments in those countries.) 

Freedom of speech?  Freedom of assembly?  Freedom to chose one’s leadership in free and fair elections? Syrians want these freedoms.  If China and Russia acknowledge the validity of Syrians’ desires, how can they continue to deny them to the people within their own national boundaries?

US Does a Great Job of Repelling Tourists

 By Patricia H. Kushlis

Several years ago, I attended a meeting in Washington, DC in which two representatives of the Commerce Department’s Travel and Tourism Office bemoaned the fact that it took forever for US Consulates to issue tourist visas.  And as a result, they said, the US was losing substantial tourist revenues to countries which were far more international travel friendly.  Appointment times for such US Consulate interviews llagged 60 days or more and the visas themselves were expensive.

The meeting I attended was devoted to the question of how America’s image abroad could be improved. The two women from Commerce sensibly suggested that reducing the visa issuance time might help.   Unfortunately, this was still too close to the 9/11 hysteria and the build up of Homeland Security to have been taken seriously. 

In 2008, I had to ask for special assistance from Senator Tom Udall’s (NM) office so that the maid of honor in my son’s wedding could make it to the wedding.  It was highly unlikely the maid of honor would not have qualified for a visa – she had just worked in the US for six years but had moved to London to take another professional level job.  Thanks to Udall’s office she did in fact get the appointment.  The visa was issued almost immediately after the interview.

But without the Senator’s staff’s intervention that forced the recalcitrant US Consulate to move the appointment date up to before, not after the wedding, the maid of honor would have been missing.  This would have been particularly ironic since the wedding was held at DACOR, a private organization of US diplomats and consular officers.  

The good news is that the Senator’s intervention made all the difference in the world.  The bad news is that it shouldn’t have been needed – if the State Department had only figured out its staffing requirements and then filled the positions.  But then management is not its forte.

On Sunday March 18, 2012 The New York Times carried an Op Ed by airline pilot Mark Vanhoenacker entitled “How Not to Attract Tourists.”  The pilot’s complaint focused on the absurd ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) requirement whereby tourists from tourist waiver countries still have to complete this special form several days before travel. As Venhoenacker describes it, the form asks unnecessarily intrusive questions that delve into the prospective traveler’s personal life and habits – some of which they’ve already supplied on other forms.

It also requires the individual to fork over $14 to Uncle Sam not only for completing and filing the ESTA form but also for the privilege of standing in unnecessarily long lines only to be greeted by surly US immigration and customs officials after having endured a multi-hour flight in a packed sardine can because there are not enough US government officials on duty.  Then there are the separate Customs Forms which are equally as loony.  What’s this about importing snails?

I had read about the $14 fee when it was introduced and thought at the time "that’s great" – now all the other countries will follow suit - slapping on putative fees for visiting Americans.  I don’t think most have – they know that American tourists bring in far more cash than the lousy $14 fee.  Ironically, $10 of the ESTA tax goes to “visit America” ad campaigns. 

Far better that it go to hiring more immigration and consular officers.

 

 

Whoops!

By Patricia Lee Sharpe


It snowed.  Then it snowed again.  Not much.  Less than two inches each night, proving that all snow-covered landscapes are in the running for beautiful.  Unfortunately, my height-challenged crocuses were nearly buried by morning.  This is how they looked in the snow.  Less than perky.

But that’s the way it is with spring, a tease if there ever was one.  One day we shiver.  The next day we prance around with lots of skin in sight.  But the wise hereabouts plant nothing delicate before June 15.  Until then  sudden temperature dips regularly accomplish a genocide of tender new leaves.  An all-too-frequent early April freeze often ruins the fruit crop in Northern New Mexico, which is challenging territory for all farmers.  Too dry.  Too high.  Totally unpredictable.  And yet we have a wonderful farmers’ market.  Brave people those farmers, thank goodness.  They earn and deserve every penny they can squeeze out of us when  the crops come in.  

Not that winter here is any more constant than spring is.  Two years ago a January thaw lasted so long that lilac buds were beginning to look like minute grape clusters.  Elsewhere serious green leaves  appeared.  Then winter roared returned with sub zero temperatures. No fragrant lilacs that year.  They’d jumped the gun.

Now it’s warming up again. The fat buds on the aspen are giving way to fuzzy little catkins.  Iris spears are knifing out of the ground.

But wait.  More snow’s due in a few days.  More beautiful snow clad mornings!  The best thing about snow at this time of year is that the steep hill in front of my house doesn't stay icy for days on end.  Five or ten days a year I need a vehicle with all-wheel drive, and I need it badly.  The rest of the year my little car purrs up and down this hill perfectly happily.  That’s when I remember the advantages of being marooned in mid winter. Errands can be postponed, and I’ve an excuse to bow out of engagements I didn't want to commit to in the first place.

When people ask me which season I like best, I stumble for a reply.  I can’t say which color I prefer or which country I remember most fondly either. There’s always something to like, something to enjoy, some beauty to savor. 

And some annoyance.

    

Snatching irrelevancy from jaws of the moment

Snatching irrelevancy from jaws of the moment

By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent

13 March 2010.   Unemployment among black youths in the UK rose from 28.8% to 55.9% over the last 3 years.  Announced 9 March 2012, this should have dominated weekend headlines in light of the demonstrated relationship between the August 2011 London riots and the then less than 50% unemployment among black youths.  

But it didn’t.  The Liberal Democrats Spring Conference did, by snatching irrelevancy from the jaws of the moment.

The Moment

Charles West, GP and former Liberal Democrat candidate for MP, tabled a motion calling on the Conference to disown the Coalition’s controversial NHS reform bill. As previously documented, this bill provides measures to force competition among health care providers. It also forces the NHS to contract with “any willing provider,” reserves up to 49% of NHS hospital beds for private patients.  The "any willing provider" is widely viewed as “code” for forcing privatization.  It would certainly push NHS trusts to contract with private for profit corporations if those corporations seek the work. Most health care providers (other than those directly benefiting) oppose this bill, largely drafted by benefiting private interests.

In the run up to the Convention it became clear to many observers that only a grass roots rebellion among Liberal Democrats could kill the bill. Dr. West gave the conference that opportunity.

West was not alone. The grass roots activists and some MPs supported him, including the outspoken MP from Cornwall, Andrew George.

High Theatre Maneuvering and Drama