Anna Soubry was not.
Andrew Neil: Anna Soubry’s boss, Simon Burns, he claims you don’t represent the views of GPs up and down the country in opposing these health reforms. What do you say to that?
Clare Gerada: I think I do, I represent 44,000 GPs, of which over 90%, when we’ve surveyed them very recently, wanted me to ask for withdrawal of the bill, and that’s against the background of 1 and a half years of consultation, 3 surveys, 5 councils, 5 executive councils, a national conference, endless consultations, I can categorically tell you that my members of the Royal College of GPs do not want this bill. Some of the parts of the bill are good, I mean putting GPs in control of money, putting patients first, addressing health inequalities, but in it’s totality, the bill is a mess, the bill is flawed, and the bill will not achieve what you and Andrew Lansley and the Prime Minister are setting out to achieve.
Andrew Neil: She represents 90% of GPs..
Anna Soubry MP : I think she’s wrong. I don’t agree. Hang on, let me….let me tell you what I think. I go into my consistency, I talk to GPs, real GPs, on the ground, in my area, the consortia was formed before we got elected into government, they are putting into operation already what we are seeking to achieve, that is my experience in my constituency, with my GPs, and let me tell you this. I was approached by a doctor who lives in my consistency, but practices in Nottingham. And he took hold of me and said ‘for god’s sakes, get this bill through, so I can deliver the treatment to my patient, that I want to do’.
AN: But that’s anecdotal evidence. Her evidence is surveys and conferences …
AS: But I’m talking about life at the real end.
AN: ..why should your anecodal evidence be.more important than hers?
AS: I didn’t say it was, I didn’t say it was more important, I think…
CG: I work as a GP, we’re part of one of the first waves -
AS: But you work part time.
I thought I might feel less angry about this since it was broadcast on the 23/2/12, but I don’t.
Sourby seems to think we need reform, but also says that GPs are already providing what she wants the NHS to achieve. She notes the survey from the RCGP, but believes only the evidence she has personally come across. (Has she received no letters of dissent?) She believes that a GP who works in Nottingham can’t provide a service to patients that he wants to and therefore needs reform of the law to do so (what service? Private enterprise is the major incentive to this bill – is that what he wanted? )
But what makes me really angry was Soubry’s dismissal of Clare Gerada’s knowledge of life at the front end as a GP because she was ‘part time’. I don’t think I’ve heard this put down used quite so dismissively in some time, and interestingly, I’ve never heard it used against a man – and also, many doctors work ‘part time’ in clinical care because of academic, management or other commitments - do we deride them equally as part-timers? What I do when I’m not at work is just as important – why do we degrade caring for family as a reason to somehow be stripped of ability?
Clare Gerada is clearly working full time plus – as a GP but also as chair of the largest College at a tumultous time in the NHS. To attempt to play the ‘part time card’ is unintelligent and unfair not just to Clare but to the thousands of part time doctors in the UK who work hard and who have just as much right and ability to know what is happening in the front line – and who know that this health bill is bad for patients, and will worsen inequalities - and who know that the government are not listening to them.
I’m still angry.
Typical Tory arrogance. Makes me angry too and I only know Dr. Gerada from Twitter. She’s got more credibility and moral fibre than the lot of them. Times 100.
Spot on, Margaret!
That is disgusting. Anna Soubry should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.
Clare Gerada implies that 90% of her 44000 members oppose the bill. In fact the survey question she refers to had less than 3000 responses. Support for dropping bill is therefore near 5% of the membership.
Just watched Soubry’s performance. She’s 100 times more arrogant and disgusting and her disdain for Clare comes across far stronger than the transcript conveys.
Even though she is not my MP, I decided to email Anna Sourby:
It won’t make one whit of a difference, of course, but it had to be said.
colin forster said:
Yes, she fluffed that bit. But she does represent those 44,000 GPs and she said:
To Alan Henessy – but the RCGP was not in favour of dropping the bill until this badly flawed survey was published. She gives no details of any of the numbers involved in the other consultations so the evidence is surely little better than anecdotal.
Many thanks for publishing the transcript. I agree that it doesn’t convey the full extent of the disdain and animosity that was evident Sourbry’s face. Can she (or, indeed, Colin Forster) seriously believe that the majority of GPs support this deeply flawed bill?
The answer, of course, is – thanks to the wonders of cognitive bias – they can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
The Conservatives started out in power believing that the master plan they’d hatched in opposition was the final solution to the NHS. A bill that would lead to virtually all funding for NHS provision being diverted to the private sector providers who funded so much of the Conservative’s and Libdem’s election campaigns and continue to pump £100s of millions into lobbying both party’s MPs. And, by allowing the possibility of co-charging/top-up payments by those who could (or even those who couldn’t) afford them, Lansley and Cameron hope to lay the basis for an insurance funded, two tier USA style NHS. These are serious intentions. They are determined, as Cameron, says, to ‘force’ the bill through.
Later in the same interview Sourby said she was ‘insulted’ (I think was the word) that people were suggesting the Coalition are privatising the NHS. She presumably has very little understanding of both her government’s bill or what privatisation actually means. There are different forms of privatisation and the bill incorporates at least five of them . A bill which puts not only the delivery but the planning of healthcare (via the commissioning companies, including American owned HMOs, who will inevitably be brought in when GPs find they cannot do without their services) into the hands of businesses which will put the interests of shareholders before those of patients certainly involves privatisation.
If the Conservatives had been more honest about their intentions and motives I don’t think they’d be in the mess they’re in. Instead, Cameron, Lansley and Clegg have been forced to bury their intentions, knowing that they’d be unacceptable to the majority of the electorate. Instead they have based their defence of the bill almost entirely on ad hominem attacks on those who oppose it and attempts to undermine the opposition. Hence Sourby’s unbelievably cheap and desparate jibe.
This personality based attack on opposition (who they also characterise as ‘trades unions’ and as ‘vested interests’) betrays their political inexperience and complete lack of leadership ability. It also betrays, I think, the fact the vast majority of special advisers in the Cameron/Clegg Whitehall have a journalistic background rather than a grounding in policy development and analysis. Sourby started her career as a journalist.
Unfortunately, with Labour in complete disarray and the Libdems terrified of a snap election, Cameron and Clegg will probably get their bill. May they rue the day.
Apologies for the length of this but I’m quite angry too! @andrewzcooper
The idea that doctors and nurses would be able to plan the care for their patients sounds great and exactly the way things should be. In reality GPs will not be able to carry out commissioning for their own patients; they will need commissioining support from private companies. This was one of the things that Clare G was trying to explain last week.
Each time a service is put out to tender the existing provider is in limbo; high quality staff leave and patients are unsure what is happening, and we are unable to refer to it.
For long term conditions continuity of care is important and so this tendering effect works against the aims of the BIll.
I work with vulnerable children who have not always got parents advocating for their well being, and so I am acting as a paediatrician and patient advocate.
I do not see any way that these reforms would improve the services available for the children with whom we work, indeed I have seen a gradual erosion over the past 10 to 15 years of access to services for the most vulnerable. The increased focus on targets rather than outcome has drained resources away from those parts of the health service with less of a voice. This is my opinion.
We need to bring back more care and humanity to the NHS .
Dr Kim Holt
Consultant Paediatrician CCH.
I was also struck by the “real GPs” comment. It’s exactly parallel to a comment I had when I pointed out that a systematic review of randomised controlled trials found no evidence of effectiveness for a particular commercial treatment for children’s developmental problems. The person who invented the treatment (who did have a scientific background and should have known better) dismissed the RCT evidence and said she had evidence that is worked from “real children in real schools”.
Is there some kind of handbook for defending yourself against evidence-based attacks where they recommend such arguments?
In order to run any service, a bit of relevant expertise doesn’t go amiss. It’s not enough to think that because you have a legal background it’s simply a case of setting out legislation regardless of how workable it is and expect everyone with expertise to simply do as they are told.
You’re angry? So am i. When arguments become mixed, anecdotal and personal then that person is in a corner and taking hits. When daily mail tells a conservative government ‘woah! Thats a bit strong’, you are seriously too far in the mire.
Clare Gerada knows what she’s talking about.
Colin Forster said:
I’ve not looked up the RCGP’s constitution, but I would assume that Clare was elected to represent the College’s members as and when appropriate. As such, is she not entitled to speak on their behalf without the need for a ballot of all members on every specific point? If the members think that she is taking the wrong stance, I presume there will be democratic means to remove her.
The RCGP tried to work with government for a long time in order to make the bill less of a threat to the NHS. You can’t force people to vote, thank goodness, and it’s quite clear that views of GP members of the RCGP have been sought, and there has been no evidence of support for the bill, and there has been great deal of opposition to it.
The survey wasn’t flawed; it was a survey; it can only tell you the views of the people who replied. I think it’s inaccurate to transpose the numbers of respondents to the membership of the RCGP, but it’s also correct to say that there is strong evidence that GPs don’t want it. The RCGP has a structure which represents members, and that is used to ensure grassroot opinion makes it’s way to Council.
It’s a great pity that people worried about the survey of GPs aren’t just as worried about Soubry’s anecdotes and non evidence based plans for dismantling the NHS.
Dorothy’s right, I reckon that the media trainer for Tory Health says; whenever they focus on evidence, find a personal line of attack, and remember the GP who grabbed you by the arm and pleaded you to save (what exactly? plans for private practice?)
Alan & Margaret,
If the RCGP President wants to say “I’m in charge, I’ve felt the pulse, and this is what we’ll do then so be it, but to decide on the basis of a dishonest survey is unacceptable.
The survey is dishonest because of:
Q4. Do you think it is appropriate to seek the withdrawal of the Health and Social Care Bill?
Anyone answering no to this takes themselves out of the survey (count the numbers – they dont answer Q5 or Q6). The results of Q5 and Q6 are then 98% and 90% yes, numbers which are then quoted in the press and on Twitter).
In fact, 1863 voted strongly or very strongly to withdraw from an a total response of 3119 (59.7%)
In October, 1413 voted strongly or very strongly to withdraw out of a total response of 1906 (74%).
So the percentage of respondents keen to withdraw FELL substantially between Oct and Jan. Of the extra responders in Jan, more than half were against!
Of course, the Govt side make stuff up too, but we are supposed to be better tham them, aren’t we?
Colin Forster said:
“If the RCGP President wants to say “I’m in charge, I’ve felt the pulse, and this is what we’ll do then so be it, but to decide on the basis of a dishonest survey is unacceptable.”
The survey – dishonest or not – is a red herring. Clare is the Chair of the RCGP and represents all 44,000 of them. As I understand it, it’s slightly more than a dismissive ‘I’ve felt the pulse’.
I’m slightly alarmed and bewildered at an email reply I had back from Ms Souby where she infers that she is being bullied by, I think, emailers to her.
This was my email
Dear Ms Soubry
I write with concern about your use of the term ‘part time’ when discussing the validity of Dr Gerada’s arguments on the Daily Politics show.
Perhaps you do not realise, but although I may be part time (2 days, 23 hours a week) I am fully committed to my vocation and well aware of what is happening in the NHS.
I found your arguments patronising and demeaning to myself as a part time worker.
Perhaps you would like to address this either in reply or on my blog http://www.margaretmccartney.com/blog/?p=1341
best wishes
Margaret McCartney
I don’t think this is anything other than a straightforward complaint. If anyone disagrees, please tell me.
I’ve asked her to clarify.
For the record, I am not part of any organised campaign against Ms Soubry. I’m not aware that there is one. I think that bullying is unacceptable.
I’ll ask if I can post her reply.
I got a reply from Soubry:
This called for a reply:
I am dismayed that she finds expressions of annoyance at her unprofessional attitude as ‘bullying’.
A very verbal supporter of Cons. is only a Locum GP!!! Enough said.
As one of Soubry’s constituents and the writer of a blog that has been charting her career since she came to power, this sadly doesn’t shock me. It’s a typically Soubry tactic: dismiss all criticism as choreographed attacks on herself, conjure up unlikely anecdotes and then tell outright untruths.
She recently told BBC Five Live that ‘All the GPs in Broxtowe support the bill’. I instantly got an email from one who didn’t. Its reminiscent of the time she claimed the postal workers at the local sorting office all supported privatisation. This led to the biggest march in Beeston in a century, and a humiliating presentation of a giant postcard with signatures of posties who didn’t support the reform.
She does have one GP friend she often quotes and uses as support, and he’s just been selected by the local tories to stand for election in a forthcoming local by-election. He presumable speaks for all GPs in Anna’s eyes. Google ‘beestonia’ and ‘soubry’ for acres of coverage of the wretched woman.
Hi – another “part-timer” here.
There is a more fundamental issue here. Within the ranks of the Tory party there is a whole swathe of people who view the State provision of free-at-the-point-of-use health care as a complete anathema.
The creeping privatisation of the NHS in England, started by New (i.e. not) Labour will be accelerated by this Bill. Fundamentally private companies are first and foremost about maximising profits, executive pay packets and share holder dividends.
Can someone please explain to me how such an ethos will help to improve the NHS as a free-at-the-point-of-use service available the length and breadth of the country, no matter how remote and rural your location is? How will this ethos avoid cherry picking and the creation of a two tier service? And before anyone asks, yes, I have read the Bill (though with over a thousand amendments I may be a bit out of touch…) and these are the conclusions I have come to.
Fortunately I live and work in Scotland where we will no have to take one iota of this Bill should the Tories “force it through” (such a democratic phrase). So if you have real concerns about this Bill the answer is simple – move to Scotland.
To Matt Beestonia,
I have just listened to Ms Soubry’s contribution on BBC IPlayer Radio 5 Live Weekend Breakfast Sat 25th Feb (about 2hrs 45min in). She simply DOES NOT SAY that ALL GPs in her constituency support the Bill. Listen again.
Colin Forster said:
The show can be heard here. At 2:49:50 (this link will start at this point), there is this exchange:
(I think I’ve transcribed this accurately, but feel free to offer corrections.)
Soubry: “I think one of the problems is…is that we…I mean I only know what GPs tell me, GPs in my constituency when I talk to them and they can’t wait for the health Bill to come into force and go through. That, that’s my experience…”
Presenter: “All of it?”
Soubry: “Yeah, yeah, absolutely, that’s what my GPs are telling me. Emmm…and I think what we have to do now is…”
Presenter: “I find that remarkable if I’m honest.”
Soubry: “I’m not being…I’m not being…I don’t make things up. What you see is what you get with me and I can assure you that is what GPs in my constituency have told me. My consortia was [sic] up and running before the Bill came into being and my consortia is [sic] already enacting those fundamental parts of it which is shifting power back to GPs working with other health professionals to deliver better care for all of us. That’s already happening. It’s certainly happening in my constituency and very successfully so.”
She clearly said “that’s what my GPs are telling me”. Bearing in mind she’s there to represent all her constituents, it’d be a bit odd if what she really meant was that it was just the Tory GPs who were telling her they supported the Bill. It comes across to me that she is claiming all the GPs in her constituency are supporting the Bill.
If she meant just the ones she had talked to – very possibly a biased sample, of course – supported the Bill, then she should be more careful with her language.
But there is still the issue that she arrogantly dismissed the views of the representative of the RCGP on utterly spurious and mendacious grounds.
But one question: there seems to be a lot of activity implementing a Bill long before it has become an Act. Under what authority are they doing this and what happens if the Bill isn’t passed?
Soubry’s GPs seem to be “enacting those fundamental parts of it which is shifting power back to GPs working with other health professionals to deliver better care for all of us.” If they’re already able to do that, why do we need a Bill?
And it’s not just them. The CHRE are also implementing parts of the Bill long before it becomes an Act. Is it normal procedure for a Government to prejudge the outcome of vote in Parliament? Or just arrogance?
Alan, your transcription seems accurate and what it says that she said is that the GPs who have spoken to her have supported the bill. This is not necessarily all of the GPs in her constituency, even if she does represent them all.
On the other hand, Clare Gerada did demonstrably claim that 98% of her members supported withdrawal of the bill. This when only 7% responded to her survey and only 75% of that 7% thought that it was even appropriate for the RCGP to ask for such a thing.
Colin Forster said:
It is, at best, sloppy language.
So she did. And she was wrong. It is also a red herring, as I said, for the reasons I’ve already given.
The fundamental problem here is that Soubry seems to think that her anecdotes about some (self-selected?) GPs in her constituency somehow automatically trumps or cancels out what the elected representative of 44,000 GPs says.
And her attitude stinks.
Alan, the bogus survey is not a red herring:
a. Ms Gerada is using that survey result to justify her position. (“4% of my members think we should ask for the Bill’s withdrawal” would not have got her on national television, would it?)
b. others including Ben Goldacre and the Leader off the Opposition have repeated it ad nauseum.
c. she was elected chair of a non-political organization. Many of its members do not even think it appropriate that the RCGP should lobby in this way.
d. I have not seen any correction or apology from her for being “wrong”.
e. If the survey was deliberately designed, and then the results mis-represented, to support a pre-determined political position, then this also stinks.
Colin Forster said:
As I said, she was wrong to imply that, but that is not the only basis for her authority, is it?
That is something you will have to take up with them.
Sorry, I got the blockquotes messed up – I hope it’s still readable.
I’m one of Anna Soubry’s constituents. I too wrote to her about the NHS BilI recently.
Her reply included this statement
“… There has been a huge amount of misinformation and plain lies about the Bill and I hope the following puts the record straight. I concede we may not have done a good job in explaining the Bill and dispelling the myths about it, but at its heart it secures the future of an NHS funded by the tax payer and free at the point of delivery. about the Bill and I hope the following puts the record straight. ”
That phrase “and plain lies” got me. I wrote back that “I also think it is not helpful to use words like ‘plain lies’ which would not be acceptable in the debating chamber.” She replied ” I am sorry you took offence at the words “plain lies” – I was writing an email not in a debating chamber! Apologies for the offence.”
So it seems it is OK to lower standards when using email. Her reply also implies I am gullible in believing” misinformation and lies”.
The current issue of our local paper has two letters complaining that she has not answered letters from critics of the Bill.
“And her attitude stinks.”
It used to but, after a while, you can’t smell it any more.
Desperate.
InBroxtowe.
The never-ever home of Spitball Soubry.
(as she still appears to live outside the constituency..)
Alan,
On point c. above: I know that many of the RCGP members think it inappropriate to ask for withdrawal, because in the very survey which yielded the Putin-esque 98%, Q4 asked this very thing and only 1905 out of 3119 respondents thought it was appropriate. How many who did not respond to the survey are likely to have had a similar view?
Colin said:
We can speculate on what other members may or may not feel about various issues and how representative that survey was till the cows come home, but regardless of what you and I believe, she still represents 44,000 GPs. However, if the members do not think she is fairly representing their views, then I am sure there will be internal democratic means to correct that situation.
I chanced across this blog and was amazed at the blind ignorance of those like Alan Henness who seem unable to see that the NHS needs & can be improved. If your political leaning is left then of course anyone but Labour (New or Old) is regarded as the devil incarnate. But where were these voices of doom when competition was introduced by New Labour and the millstone of PFI was launched on the unsuspecting public. If you people here want to get angry then for heavens sake get real ! One assumes this is the same serial Alan Henness mentioned as the “… one individual, Alan Henness, has made complaints against over 500 individual chiropractors to the Statutory Regulator for chiropractors, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC).” ?
John Carter said:
“I…was amazed at the blind ignorance of those like Alan Henness who seem unable to see that the NHS needs & can be improved.”
Can you explain how you managed to jump to the conclusion that a) I am blindly ignorant and b) that I am unable to see that the NHS needs & can be improved?
“One assumes this is the same serial Alan Henness mentioned as the “… one individual, Alan Henness, has made complaints against over 500 individual chiropractors to the Statutory Regulator for chiropractors, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC).” ?”
I’m not sure what a ‘serial Alan Henness’ is, but can you explain why you think this is relevant to the question at hand: that of whether the Chair of the RCGP represents 44,000 GPs?