Brent Council Liberal Democrats and A&E at Central Middlesex

Yesterday night at Full Council, the Labour group supported a motion that condemned the lack of consideration shown to Brent residents given that this department serves people living in the poorest part of Brent.

Sadly, the Brent Council Lib Dems and Tories both failed to support the motion and voted against it. It is worth noting that there were a couple of Lib Dem Councillors, namely Barry Cheese and Ann Hunter that did at least abstain and could not bring themselves to vote against the motion.

However, the erratic behaviour of Lib Dem Leader Cllr Paul Lorber during the debate of the motion sent shockwaves in the Council Chamber. He claimed that A&E is mostly for drunk people anyway and chose to attack me for being “relatively new” and “inexperienced” rather than address the arguments I made in the debate about meeting the needs of the poorest in the Borough and the concerns that residents in Brent were raising over A&E closure.

What’s more, is that Brent Tory Cllr Reg Colwill joined in with his contribution to the debate.

Such age discriminatory comments are very out of touch and perhaps shows the greater need to have more young people in elected and prominent positions and change the age demographic and profile of Councillors.

I’m sure there would have been a formal punishment had it been a younger Councillor making a similar derogatory comment based on age to an elderly Councillor.

This is proof that there is a lot of progress to be made in changing the attitudes and mindset of Councillors as well as wider society towards young people.

One thought on “Brent Council Liberal Democrats and A&E at Central Middlesex

  1. However bad Paul Lorber’s speech may have been (and it was bad) he is nevertheless right.

    We need to close lots of A&E departments in London, to stop killing so many people.

    It is not important to get to an A&E hospital quickly, because modern ambulances, with trained paramedics, can stabilise patients, and the longer journeys to larger hospitals are not on any consequence. In fact, the hospitals have time to prepare better.

    Larger hospitals will have doctors who handle a greater work-load and are therefore more proficient, and there is 24-hour access to expensive diagnostic equipment and consultants in various specialities. All of this greatly improves outcomes.

    The only disadvantage? Longer journeys for visitors. That is far less important.

    Similar arguments apply to heart and stroke departments and to cancer hospitals.

    It is possible to argue about WHICH hospital A&E departments to close, but it should not be over the principle, which has been widely researched worldiwde.

    It is wrong to argue (as you did) that CMH is only 3 minutes away from Craven Park (why Craven Park?) but NPH is 20 minutes away. Better to visit someone in a ward at the latter, than in the mortuary at the former.

Leave a Reply to Smiler Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.