The crucial role for the SHA must be to influence the Labour Party to adopt the policies we advocate.  I am pleased with the substantive and well-argued document we have developed over the last few months, with contributions from many in the SHA.  I hope the AGM approves the document which shows the value of tapping into the knowledge and experience within the association.

I believe that Labour policy has moved along the direction we support and we should continue to support Andy Burnham.

I am pleased to have had constructive relationships with our supporting trade unions and with KONP.  We are meeting collectively to look at where our policies differ to try to avoid conflicting positions.

have enjoyed meeting colleagues in Wales and Scotland and West Midlands.  I strongly support the idea of an SHA with a federated structure and would like to see a Branch developed in the East.

We have had many excellent discussions both at our meetings and also through the web site and emails.  We have not been good at translating discussions into decisions and clear policies; something the new Officers should consider.  We also need urgently to decide how best to ensure our policies are adopted through the Labour Party policy making processes.

Whilst I can respect the views of those who wish to weaken or even end our relationship with the Labour Party and the Trade Unions I do not agree and believe that it would signal the end of the SHA as we know it.

We have also had unpleasant and inappropriate exchanges, which I regret.  I have proposed two changes to our rules to try to prevent these situations from recurring.  One makes clear all groups must have proper terms of reference and make and record decisions properly. The second makes clear that general administration and issues between Central Council meetings should be dealt with by the Officers and Directors acting together in an open and transparent way.

I do not support the raft of changes being proposed to the rules and I expressed this view to the group – although I was not able to meet with them as I requested.  The changes are a reminder of the destabilization of our NHS caused by major governance changes which did not reflect the views of those that the changes were imposed on.  The changes do not reflect the experience of the current and past officers and would make the SHA bureaucratic and unwieldy. The changes to the role of the Director are so far reaching they could only be made by consent.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. How odd. The Chair says he ‘was unable to meet the governance group as he requested’. In fact he was invited to both of their meetings. He attended the first. He advised he was unable to attend the second (despite reasonable notice) due to unspecified other work commitments. There is much else that is inaccurate in this post but the public web is probably not the best place to discuss it.

  2. Tony Jewell says:

    I think Richard is right to point out that the SHA needs to be outward looking seeking to help develop LP health and wider policies to build a fairer society as well as a thriving NHS. We do this through working within the LP and with trade union partners. What we can’t afford to do as a small organisation is to turn inwards. The next 1-2 years are vital and there is a gap we need to fill in respect of well argued socialist policy for equity, health and well being.

  3. Mike Roberts says:

    Sometimes Richard Bourne or Irwin Brown, his other personna, needs to come clean as to his many past involvements and current ones.

    His view on what did or not happen at the governance review group is a distortion praising the group for its wide ranging reivew but then seeking to denegrate it.

    For someone who was sacked as chair of Riverside Foundationn Trust ( basically Colchester Hospital) by Monitor and has repeatedly not clarified his commercial interests but has a consulting company registered in Ireland RB Consulting I think that people who cannot be open and frank about their focus need to consider their credibility.

    No wonder this is a keya rea of necessary reofrm form the governance group

    1. Alison Scouller says:

      Just a point of information. I know at least one other who has used the personna Irwin Brown. Not myself.Alison Scouller

    2. Huw Davies says:

      Mike
      Can you give a weblink to RB Consulting?
      Huw Davies

  4. Martin Rathfelder says:

    Irwin Brown is a pseudonym which has been used over many years and by many people. It is certainly not right to assume that everything which appears in that name is written by Richard.

  5. Huw Davies says:

    This company appears to have nothing to do with our preent chair.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 829 other subscribers.

Follow us on Twitter