Posted tagged ‘Unison’

Hiding behind Exaggeration

May 6, 2011

Is exaggeration hiding the debate?

Do you know what I hate more than anything in the whole world, that there is not a single thing in the world which I wouldn’t do to get rid of it?

Exaggeration.

Exaggeration is at the heart of many unnecessary arguments, and is the thing which skews correct and useful information into something which bears little or no relation to anything that can be used to formulate an informed and valid opinion. And when one person or group gets a reputation for exaggeration, it is assumed that most things they then say is exaggerated, which can in turn lessen its impact hugely.

This point came to mind when reading a recent press release from Unison, which you should be able to find amongst other places at the Lancashire Unison website. In it they bring up a number of duties which the government is aiming to scrap, and explore the possible levels of anarchy which would then be possible. A few of my personal favourites include:

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 89

Councils currently have to keep land and highways clear of litter. Would litter start to pile up on our streets?

Public Health Act 1936

Councils have to provide mortuaries. Would removing this duty see bodies pile up in the street?

Licensing Act 2003 Section 18

Requires local authorities to have a system for regulating premises licenses, including issuing licenses. Would we see strip clubs set up on any corner?

(more…)

Consulting when your mind is made up

September 9, 2010

Confirming the policy?

This has been bothering me for a while now so I thought I’d share my general botherment with the readers of this blog. Two weeks ago Unison announced that they were taking the Government to court in an attempt to prevent the health White Paper which will break up Primary Care Trusts being implemented.

Now, this particular blogger is not immune to Unison’s arguments (and generally agrees with the points made here and here by her colleagues) and probably would prefer to leave the vital role of health commissioning in the hands of expert PCTs.

However, it’s the rationale for the court appearances that really irks. They are taking the Government to court because the Government did not consult sufficiently. There are two problems here:

Firstly, the Government, like them or not, did have a consultation; it was called a General Election and more MPs who back this policy won than those who do not. To complain to the judge that the big bad politicians won an election and then did what they said they were going to is quite frankly silly. (more…)