Main Edition
US
FR
August 31, 2024 - 8:00am
Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, has suggested that she received priority treatment from an NHS doctor because of her decision to vote in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza.
Addressing the gathered throngs at “An Evening With Jess Phillips”, the Minister for Safeguarding described visiting A&E at a Birmingham hospital for breathing difficulties. Luckily, given that she told the crowd she had “genuinely seen better health facilities in war zones, in developing countries around the world”, she did not have to stay long.
Phillips claimed that she was able to push ahead of other patients because the doctor who treated her was Palestinian, and she had previously resigned from Labour’s front bench after voting in favour of a ceasefire in Gaza. “He was sort of like, ‘I like you. You voted for a ceasefire,’” she admitted. “I got through quicker.”
There are a number of reasons why this is staggering. The first is that Phillips claims “almost all the doctors in Birmingham seemed to be [Palestinian].” Given that only 207 Palestinians work in the NHS in total, it’s little wonder she was waiting so long. Equally astonishing is that Philips would tell this story at all. Presumably, she meant to convey a sense that Gaza had real impacts on her constituents because it is an issue that matters to respectable people like doctors.
Certainly, this would fit in with Phillip’s history of blinkeredness. After receiving a torrent of abuse from pro-Gaza activists at the last general election — including being threatened, intimidated and drowned out by shouts whilst giving her acceptance speech — she was asked whether this hostile response was sectarian. She responded that “the fact that they were Muslim is not significant because there are Muslim people in my constituency who didn’t behave like this”, before adding: “they did it because they were idiots.”
But, after being given priority for medical treatment by a doctor on the grounds of sectarian division generated by the latest flare-up of a millennia-long inter-ethnic conflict thousands of miles away, it is hard to see how the blinkers can stay on. Accusations of two-tier policing are bad; the implications of two-tier healthcare are arguably worse.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSome thought the tactic of saying very little on policy matters, as Labour did in the General Election, was cleverly designed to allow the then Government, Conservative, to continually demonstrate their incompetence; which they duly did. Nevertheless, I always felt the relative silence illustrated, in part, the lack of experience, intelligence, imagination and political nous on the Labour front bench. The first few weeks of the new Government surely lends credence to that last sentence?
Better to keep quiet and be considered a fool rather than speak up and remove all doubt.
Let’s not pretend that we really did not know what these people we now have in ministerial positions were really like; there are plenty of utterances from before the election was called that paint a very accurate picture of what we could expect to and indeed now are seeing.
Anyone who is appalled by what the electoral system has allowed to govern us for the next 5 years on just 20% of the electorate voting for them and who is around / can get to London for Noon on Weds 4th Sept (first PMQs) should consider joining this rally:
https://www.instagram.com/fiona_covileaks/p/C_A2EzHN40b/
If you want to know more about the background of the organiser – she is not far right or ex EDL (which was never far right in the first place and has not existed for nearly a decade) watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roLA79Aaz2E
Sooner or later we have to face the truth about Islam.
Which is?
Supremacist, totalitarian, intolerant, deadly. But you know this already, so why ask?
The truth about Islam is that there are very few Palestinian Christians left in Gaza.
Another truth about Islam is that if you’re a homo, you’ll have a far better life in Israel than in the occupied territories.
In a stunning finding, it’s been persistently demonstrated that folk prefer to live, rather than to be hanged.
Tsk. It does feel at times that the quality of enquiry and debate in the UH comments section could raise its game.
The question was a genuine one. To what truth do you refer? That Islam is basically a good religion but with a few bad eggs, or that is is a bad religion with a few good eggs, or even that it isn’t a religion at all but a political ideology with religious overtones? Your answer would then inform a further debate about how one might deal with the challenges posed by Islam. But clearly not today.
All religions are to some extent ‘political’: some major ‘religions’ are so consistently and profoundly political over many centuries, that ‘religion’ can only be a facade: or maybe I have the wrong history books.
It’s been debated ad nauseam. If you’re still hungry for debate, you probably haven’t been paying attention.
I’m not a religious person but I do know that with regards to Christianity, you can pretty much take it or leave it. Sure, some very pious families might disown a child or sibling that abandons the faith but you’re unlikely to be murdered.
Islam? Maybe you can leave the faith but there’s a reasonable possibility that you might meet your maker sooner than you expected.
Christians did go round the world conquering nations to “save” them but they’ve pretty much stopped doing that. Islam, m’eh not so much.
Islam strikes me as a religion which supports people in acts of terrible wickedness. Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews all have bad moments but these pale in comparison to the cruelties committed in the name of Mo.
You’re considering Christian on non-Christian violence.
In the lifetimes of many UnHerd commenters, it has been violence between Christians that has promoted terrorism – in the UK between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, which included repeated bombings of civilians, with children and babies killed.
I understand the current risk of Islamic terrorism but looking through the decades, it seems very much the “thing” to get into now if you want to commit acts if violence rather than stemming from the religion itself which is multifaceted (remember the 7/7 bombers were secular middle class students before being radicalised).
Given demographics and geopolitical tensions, we may see a rise in Hindutva terrorism in future and some future commenters with a worldview like yourself will worry that Hinduism is the greatest threat to civilisation and claim thar the Islamic terrorism of their past was never as bad as what they have in that future time.
Sadly, I don’t think terrorism per se is going anywhere, but it is the relgion of violence itself that provides the hook for all the world’s religions (and ideologies) to hang their hat on.
Yes, but the problems in Ireland are more to do national identity than religion. It just so happens that those who are Roman Catholic largely identify as being Irish and those who belong to one of the the many shades of protestant / dissenter churches identify largely as British. But of course we all know that.
Surely this is garbage? The doctor who saw her won’t even have been involved in her triage. If she was given preferential treatment it will have been because she’s an MP. But it’s still more likely that she ‘pushed to the front of the queue’ because of the fairly serious sounding nature of her condition.
Which bit is garbage? That it happened or that she said it happened? If true/true, then that is bad for the reasons enunciated in the article. If false/true then that is also bad as an MP is spreading the lie that public services are being allocated along sectarian lines. False/false and true/false don’t exist in this instance as she is on record having said it. Also the doctor could quite easily have been triaging her – that happens frequently in A&E.
I would go for false/true based on the track record of comments of dubious intellect from the person making these claims. That she managed to survive as an MP is quite amazing. That she has a junior ministerial position is almost beyond belief until you look around the senior ministers Starmer has surrounded himself with.
That she thinks it, because despite what you say a busy A+E that looks worse than a war zone is not going to have the same doctor on triage as examining patients. Notice she doesn’t quote the doc directly, but says ‘he was sort of like’ – ie it was in her head.
Also because she says it, seemingly unaware of the obvious implications. Garbage is not the right word for this part I suppose, stupid would be more appropriate.
Exactly. And she has form. That incident with Diane Abbott never happened, for example. Yet she has based her entire career on that one. No “journalist” thought it worth asking Abbott.
“…academic David Jefferey asked: what type of care will you receive if you are perceived to be Jewish…”
It’s not just Jewish people of course, as someone of Indian descent with a nominally hindu background, I had better make sure to not ever find myself in a Birmingham hospital with a bunch of Pakistani doctors and nurses.
Consultant looking at form:
“Hmm, indian ethnicity you say?, ok please join the back of queue over there… Oh wait, it says here your religion is atheist.”
Considers the situation for a moment. Finally, he says:
“I think we will put you in the Harold Shipman Ward, this way please….”.
I’ve only ever witnessed one case of a doctor directly discriminating against a particular patient. I was doing a weekend locum (temporary post) in a large town in the West Midlands. The doctor immediately junior to me introduced herself as the wife of a local GP, which she clearly believed excused her from any difficult or unpleasant task. There was a dark skinned patient, in UK terms clearly “working class”, sitting cross legged in bed, short of breath. I asked the junior about her and was told she had asthma and was being treated; I sensed something was wrong but I was temporary and felt I ought to trust my permanent colleague.
I was kept busy elsewhere, but the next day I passed by and the same woman was struggling for breath, so I sorted out her asthma. A few hours later I was doing a ward round with the junior. The patient had recovered, and on seeing us she started bowing with her hands joined. She tried to get the junior standing next to me to translate what she was saying, but the junior doctor backed away in obvious distaste, and refused to help her communicate.
The junior was dressed in colourful silks and gold jewellery, which as far as I know is Hindu dress, and I assumed at the time that the issue between the two women was one of caste, but perhaps there was a different explanation for this disturbing incident.
And was the junior doc from the ” peaceful” faith? I doubt that caste is any longer an issue- it isn’t at least in India in such cases for the most part in getting medical treatment. Caste slurs are strictly punishable as a non bailable offence.
People can lose their jobs if found guilty of denying treatment or delaying it on grounds of caste.
Having said that the issue of caste featuring in electoral politics as a bargaining counter is a different issue- which is more political than sociological.
I don’t think so. She was wearing a sari with a bare midriff, which I associate with Hindus, but I’m not certain, and I didn’t ask. This all happened 30 years ago, and I had much less experience of multicultural issues then. Perhaps the patient was Bangladeshi; they seem to be the bottom of the pecking order, and few others can understand their languages.
I’m afraid I don’t agree at all – the idea that caste is no longer an issue in India is nonsense. It is decreasing rapidly as urbanisation increases in India (which went past the 50% population urbanised point not that long ago), but caste is still very very prevalent, for example as the matrimonial sites in India patently demonstrate, caste is the first thing most India families consider. Cross-caste marriages are a small percentage, and cross-religion pretty much non-existent, as you being in India would know better than anyone. Caste has less and less significance the further up the wealth tree you go, but as the majority of wealth in India is still within the old upper castes, this then becomes about dissolving barriers across the old north-south and east-west divides rather than just caste, but it’s just about wealth.
I think you misunderstood my remark. Caste is important as a political category but you need to be more au courant with latest politics since 1989 to realise that the concept of upper castes dominating the public sphere is pretty outdated.
I am Bengali and caste hardly matters here. In the South of India the Dravidian movements have ended Brahmanical domination a long time back. Politicians like Modi, Mayavati, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav etc are all lower caste. The last two Heads of State are Scheduled Caste and Tribal, and the most impressive strides towards caste being erased as a public category have been in recent years.
It is also a myth to presume it’s ” upper caste versus lower caste”. That’s not the way Indian politics works.
In fact 50 percent and 65 percent of all educational and government jobs are reserved for hitherto oppressed lower castes. Plus the business groups you mention are hardly at the highest rung- they are traditionally the trading and mercantile castes which are not Brahmin.
The only elite bastion is the Congress party. It’s leadership is mostly upper caste and Woke. It invokes caste much as the old colonial censuses do. In fact all that it’s dynastic leader talks about is caste to prevent a unified Indian identity of developmentalism and civilizational unity emerging, since it became clear he couldn’t win elections other than on divisive slogans. Even then he could win only 99 seats.
Most people I know who marry themselves do so out of choice and across caste and religious barriers.
Where caste survives is perhaps only in very traditional ” arranged” marriages.
Religious sectarianism has more to do with the Congress party’s politics of appeasement than anything else.
I won’t go OT here anymore but you should read more contemporary Indian analysis to know the realities here.
I suspect you guess about caste is likely correct. My comment was tongue in cheek of course but we can all see the increasing sectarianism and to be honest it dismays me.
A friend who recently visited the UK was repeatedly harassed at Heathrow airport by Pakistanis in immigration staff about whether he voted BJP or not. Why does the Labour regime think it’s clever to have such types at airports instead of white Britons who are clearly the original inhabitants of the UK?
Cheaper workers
Probably a similar reason as why the 19th-century US didn’t have Iroquois staff processing immigrants on Elis Island.
In the early 2000’s, I worked in the NHS for five years. I witnessed Doctors family members get bounced to the top of waiting lists. A senior consultant refused to see a possible cancer patient on a 2 week wait as he was going on holiday for Christmas straight after his clinic. I know that because I was the one that tried to get her on his list. So lists do get manipulated/ignored when it suits. Incidentally, I also know of a very senior hospital director who walked into medical records one day with their child and told the department that they would be working in that department for the summer. The NHS is rotten and until people stop believing the lies about its world class service and that it’s ‘all the fault of managers’ nothing will change.
Utter rubbish, She nearly lost her seat because of Gaza.
This illustrates Miss Phillips’ stupidity, nothing more nothing less. There really should be some “nous” test before people are permitted to be put on the ballot box.
I don’t believe her (anyone with blue lips would have been prioritised in A&E).
I think it’s more a case of “You don’t know that doctor; he went to a different school”.
The actual point at issue is WHY Phillips decided this particular embroidered anecdote was useful for her to tell. And I’d suggest her narrow victory in the recent election has told her exactly who she needs to placate.
Very apt. Phillips should have told the errant doctor she’d wait with the rest of the “equal access” NHS patients. That she didn’t tells us all we need to know about her character.
The problem is that if you import vast numbers of people from tribal societies you *are* going to get society fracturing, then shattering, along tribal lines.
Assuming Phillips is not lying – then neither of these people should be in their present jobs in the UK.
Both should be fired.
So she’s a minister now I see? And for ‘safeguarding’, whatever the Hell that means. From what little I know of her it’d be hard to think of a worse candidate, seeing as she’s had a long-running feud with a man over his hardline commitment to *NOT* commit a heinous crime.
Carl Benjamin recently apologized to her. I wonder if she’ll apologize to him for trying to ruin his life. Seeing as she *still is*, I have a feeling that the answer would be ‘no’.
I am sick and f*****g tired of Gaza playing such an outsized role in U.K. politics. We’ve got enough of our own problems.
At Ilford South, the Labour Party removed Sam Tarry as its parliamentary candidate because he had supported a strike, and replaced him with Jas Athwal, who rented out flats with black mould and with ant infestations.
Athwal was the Leader of the local council, so it is inconceivable that no one knew that he was also a slum landlord. The Labour Party actively preferred a slum landlord to a trade unionist.
Meanwhile, Jess Phillips has made the ridiculous and offensive claim that she had been given priority in hospital treatment because of her support for a ceasefire in Gaza. As much as anything else, far from her being known for such support, that issue very nearly cost her her seat. Her latest remarks give aid and succour to the recent rioters.
Phillips should be sacked as a Minister, she and Athwal should both lose the Labour whip, and Athwal, at least, should be expelled from the Labour Party for having brought it into disrepute. Obviously, none of those things is going to happen. Do not vote Labour.
Astonishing. Jess Philips seems to be boasting that she got privileged treatment by defying the labour whip and demonstrating her pro-Palestine stance. Is it beyond her to understand that providing treatment based on ideology and political allegiance is a serious breach of the NHS principles? It’s discrimination, plain and simple. More astonishing is that she seems to have no conception of how a doctor who prioritizes patients for pro-Palestine views might treat a Jew, or anyone who supports Israel. What would happen to me if I turned up with a star of David around my neck? Would I be put to the back of queue, or denied treatment? Jess, that’s the flip-side of the privilege you boasted about. And if you’re ok with that you are a racist.
At Royal Manchester Children’s hospital a seriously ill nine-year-old Jewish boy was forced to sit on the floor by staff wearing Palestinian insignia. Jess, is that what you’re supporting – ethnic discrimination?
Will we see the minister arrested for incitement?
Numerous people have been, and are, active in the Palestinian cause. How come the only one who has ever received preferential treatment from the NHS was entirely unknown for any such commitment, but had previously claimed to have knocked on 25,000 doors in six weeks, or one every two and a half minutes if she had been doing it 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
Agree with the author one hundred percent. How could she be so dim so as to publicise this, regardless on whether it is true or not?