Tag: mustnt

  • Starmer is right to stop Corbyn standing for Labour at the next election – but he mustn’t purge dissent | Polly Toynbee

    Starmer is right to stop Corbyn standing for Labour at the next election – but he mustn’t purge dissent | Polly Toynbee

    [ad_1]

    The shame of the Labour party – the Labour party! – being put into special measures by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for racism shocked most members to the core in 2020. To be released from that disgrace now is hardly a moment for celebration, after the EHRC’s original finding that Labour acted unlawfully in failing to rein in antisemitism under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

    His refusal to accept the overall findings set Corbyn on an inevitable path out of the parliamentary Labour party. He maintains “The scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.” But a party can’t be a little bit racist: the damning findings had to be swallowed whole.

    Keir Starmer’s confirmation today that Corbyn cannot stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election is hardly surprising. Cleansing the party of antisemitism is deeply personal for Starmer, as his wife is Jewish and they keep Jewish festivals. But Corbyn’s obstinacy was convenient, too, his expulsion an opportunity to demonstrate Starmer’s mission to get a grip on the party. Rishi Sunak’s feeble jibes at Starmer for serving in Corbyn’s cabinet bounce off him now.

    Of course, as Starmer said yesterday today, it’s a job not quite done: when the Labour MP Kim Johnson got up at PMQs to call the Israeli government fascist, she had to apologise to the house promptly, under threat from the chief whip.

    Taking over the leadership during the Covid crisis, Starmer devoted his time to fixing the party internally as he slowly made progress with voters. Asked his mission, he declared it was “winning”. It has paid off handsomely as he soars in the polls. I am told that many reports from local meetings speak of the Corbynite influence fading, with some of his supporters leaving altogether or changing their mind as the party inches towards power. Starmer has been lucky in the total implosion of the Tories and lucky again with the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon: polling for all her likely successors is unimpressive, aiding Labour’s chances in Scotland.

    No opposition leader has ever scored as low in Ipsos’s polling as Corbyn’s -60 personal approval rating, with Michael Foot at -56, and Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague tied at -37. Corbyn benefited from his opponents’ disastrous campaign in 2017, though his personal rating trailed far behind both Theresa May’s and his own party’s popularity – Labour won 40% of votes to the Tories’ 42.4%. Yet there are those who still see him as a saviour rather than a drag anchor: as the one who brought flocks of enthusiastic new members into the party, and prompted delighted chants of “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn” at Glastonbury. He was betrayed by rightwingers in the party and brought down in 2019 by those who should have backed him, they say.

    The Guardian is often their chief villain. Whenever I write criticism of the government I am guaranteed Twitter and thread responses claiming that if only I, my colleagues and the paper had backed him, we wouldn’t be suffering this Tory era. A brief check in the archive would show that the only thing wrong with this analysis is that I, other columnists and the Guardian’s leader all urged voters to back Corbyn’s Labour party. How could we not, after a decade of brutal austerity, and given Boris Johnson’s unfitness for power? I backed just about every individual item in Labour’s 2019 manifesto: it was nothing like Michael Foot’s “longest suicide note in history”, which pledged to leave both the EU and Nato. Its obstacle was its implausible costings, with extra billions added during the campaign.

    But Labour’s worst problem was Corbyn himself, as voters feared his perceived lack of patriotism (prompted by, for example, his failure to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event) and told focus groups and pollsters they felt he was “not concerned about their issues” or “people like them”. Most voters never joined that misleading Glastonbury chorus.

    My own greatest anger with Corbyn him was over his refusal to campaign seriously against Brexit in the referendum. “Where is he?” I asked his advisers a couple of months before the vote. “He thinks the local elections more important,” was the unforgivable reply, when in truth he was a lexiter – a Bennite Brexiter.

    But because our monstrous election system offers only a binary choice, of course progressives of every hue had to back Labour against a nightmarish, sociopathic Tory leader. I never doubted that Corbyn would be a preferable prime minister to Johnson – the lowest of bars – but in 2019 he led Labour to its worst result since 1935. Now, Corbyn’s remaining believers cling to that last resort of all failed ideologues, the same refrain as the failing Brexiters’: we were betrayed.

    Corbyn seems likely to stand as an independent for Islington North, where Labour has an array of good would-be candidates. Groups within Labour such as Momentum may face a quandary, as they would automatically be expelled from the party if they campaigned for him against Labour. But in the present golden polling climate, it hardly matters who wins that one seat. What matters is that Labour has expunged the shame of the EHRC’s special measures. What matters, too, is that in its haste to escape the failure of Corbynism, Labour doesn’t overreach and purge anyone with anything original or interesting to say.

    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

    [ad_2]
    #Starmer #stop #Corbyn #standing #Labour #election #mustnt #purge #dissent #Polly #Toynbee
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • Policies for greater access to rural healthcare mustn’t short-change rural residents: SC

    Policies for greater access to rural healthcare mustn’t short-change rural residents: SC

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that a state legislature has no legislative competence to enact a law in respect of modern medicine or allopathic medicine, contrary to the standards that have been determined by the central law.

    It emphasised that policies for enhancing access to rural healthcare must not “short-change” the citizens residing in rural areas or subject them to direct or indirect forms of unfair discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or residence.

    A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna said: “Any variation between the standards of qualification required for medical practitioners who render services in rural areas qua the medical practitioners rendering services in urban or metropolitan areas must prescribe to constitutional values of substantive equality and non-discrimination.”

    It said that deciding the particular qualifications for medical practitioners practising in disparate areas and in disparate fields, providing different levels of primary, secondary or tertiary medical services, is within the mandate of expert and statutory authorities entrusted with the mandate by the Parliament.

    Justice Nagarathna, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said while the state has every right to devise policies for public health and medical education, with due regard to peculiar social and financial considerations, these policies ought not to cause unfair disadvantage to any class of citizens.

    “The citizens residing in rural areas have an equal right to access healthcare services, by duly qualified staff. Policies for enhancing access to rural healthcare must not short-change the citizens residing in rural areas or subject them to direct or indirect forms of unfair discrimination on the basis of their place of birth or residence,” said the bench, in its 139-page judgment.

    The top court’s judgment came on an appeal against the Gauhati High Court order, struck down the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004, on the ground that it was ultra vires the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as well as unconstitutional.

    The top court said: “We hold that decision of the Gauhati High Court holding that the Assam Act to be null and void, is just and proper”.

    It added that in view of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, the Assam Act is declared to be null and void.

    The Assam government had introduced a three-year diploma course to address the issue of the shortage of qualified medical professionals by producing a cadre of doctors allowed to practice modern medicine, to a very limited extent.

    The Indian Medical Association (IMA), the main respondent in the case, had argued that the Assam Act discriminates between patients living in rural areas and those living in urban areas, implying that the persons who live in urban areas are entitled to standard treatment and those who live in rural areas are entitled to sub-standard treatment.

    “There are more than 2,244 MBBS doctors working in the rural areas of Assam; even if there is a shortfall of doctors in the rural areas and the Assam Act aims to remedy the shortfall, the solution lies in increasing their coverage via permissible means and not otherwise,” it had submitted.

    The Assam government did not challenge the judgment passed by the high court, which struck down the Assam Act and only private individuals were appellants before the apex court. Assam enacted a subsequent legislation and has tried to accommodate the ousted diploma holders in different capacities.

    Dismissing the appeals, the top court said: “The subsequent legislation, namely, the Assam Act of 2015 i.e., the Assam Community Professionals (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015, enacted pursuant to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, is a valid piece of Legislation as it has removed the basis of the impugned judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court. The 2015 Act is also not in conflict with the IMC Act, 1956, hence, by a separate legislation the Community Health Professionals have been permitted to practise as such professionals. The said legislation of 2015 is not in conflict with IMC, Act, 1956 and the rules and regulations made thereunder.”

    [ad_2]
    #Policies #greater #access #rural #healthcare #mustnt #shortchange #rural #residents

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )