Wednesday, 19 August 2009

Tory Not Honest Over Second Job in Health

They want to appear to be the 'honest' party of British Politics, after all that does seem to be their latest mantra to throw into every sound bite.

They want to appear to be fully behind the NHS after Daniel Hannan MEP saying the the NHS was a '60 year mistake'.

They want openness and honest about their members second jobs, even as in the case of John Lamont seeking his second mandate after they have used such two-jobbing as a tool to attack.

Yet it has emerged that Shadow Health Minister Lord Ian McColl hasn't been open about his conflict of interests. The ignoble Lord is a paid consultant for Endeavour Health a private health care company, offering a private GP and Dental network to the best while beating NHS queue. They have also been quick to turn a profit out of fear from the potential Swine Flu pandemic.

Apparently the news that Lord McColl was a paid consultant to Endeavour Health was news to David Cameron, whose office said he was unaware of the Minister's role with the GP network. The Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was also out of the loop saying that his colleague had never raised the issue with the health team of which he has been part of since 1997.

Cameron has so far been treading a line of non-action (no surprise there from these Tories) over the NHS. No action has been taken against Hannan. However, what stance will he take over deceit and failing to disclose an interest, not merely in one speech or question on a subject, but on the entire portfolio Lord McColl is supposed to be shadowing.

UPDATE: I see that Mr Dale has waded into the defence of Lord McColl but is broadly missing the point on a few scores.

It is not the fact that he has a second job that is the major concern but that the fact that it has direct conflict with running the Government funded NHS. A position he has been shadowing for 12 years so how a former Tory PPC can fail to know part of their health team astounds me.

Also Iain shows part of the Tory dilemma he points out that in attendance allowance the Lord would have earned £27,840, saying "unless you have private means, you have to have outside work". I guess me and millions of other still have a lot to aspire to, and a lot more work to do to even get to a level to think about having an outside job then as well, to make ends meet.

But of course bravo to Iain for using his private health insurance to free up a spot on the NHS waiting list. At least he can afford to unlike many others, either here or in the USA, who would/are not be able to get the health care they need with a national health care provision that is free at the point of entry.


  1. Why should Cameron take action against Hannan? He was only speaking the truth.

    It's time we woke up and realised we have a second rate health service which gives second rate results. We deserve better.

  2. Why should you worry about a tory having two jobs. You did not appear to be concerned when Jim Wallace had three.

    Still waiting for your reply to my questions
    "why is it not ok for Salmond to have three jobs even though the salary from one is given to charity" when no objection was raise to Wallace or Dewar?

    Did Jim Wallace draw in full his three salaries?

  3. Subrosa, Hannan went beyond the level of truth and failed to point out failings in the US system. He also played to crowd and using the 'socialist' word a word used in the USA to try and prevent anything looking out for the less fortunate.

    As for you Dubbieside it is not the second job that is the issue here entirely. It is non-statement of a vested interest to his own party let alone the House. This is how the Tories want to clean up politics.

    As for Jim Wallace, his MSP and Deputy First Minister salary which are two of the three you suggest are one and the same, one is merely a rank of seniority. As for the 'third' the MPs salary Jim was not alone in the talents from all parties that took part in that first couple of years of the Scottish Parliament. All of them, with the exception of Dewer, stood down at the GE as they had stated they would do when they stood.

    There was still committee stages in Westminster at the time handing powers over to Holyrood in those early days and the continuity of some of those faces in both places would have eased that process.

    Besides the SNP have used the two-jobs line to attack Margaret Moran last summer. So while their own leader is doing simultaneously so it is a point of hypocricy.

  4. You appear to have forgotten your post of 3rd August "the cost of three jobs Salmond"

    So for Jim Wallace two of the three salaries are one and the same, yet for Salmond they are part of the cost of the jobs Salmond.

    Your part about committee stages is just spin.

    Whats the attack on Margret Curran got to do with Wallace, or is your view everyone can attack the SNP on this issue, but it is ok if their politicians do it.

    I do not think you should talk about hypocrisy.