The reason he was willing to make his criticisms of the NHS was that he was trying to justify to British orthopaedic surgeons the Government's drive towards contracting out operations - mainly hip and knee replacements - to Independent Treatment Centres (reported in the Daily Telegraph today).

Immediately after his remark on "very, very long" waiting lists for the past 50 years, he said, "...we are talking about a Government that does not accept that. I realise that may be uncomfortable to people who have grown to love waiting lists."

Some the assembled surgeons booed and hissed. That was probably because of the apparent implication that these surgeons actually wanted people to wait and suffer on the lists in order for the richer and more desperate among them to pay the surgeons for private operations instead. In other words, Lord Warner may have been portraying the surgeons as greedy people unconcerned with the speedy curing of ill people. (Those among the surgeons even more wedded to the old NHS model than the Labour minister might have also been angered by the idea of undermining it by contracting-out operations. Some of them certainly also have believed that the contracting-out operations does not serve patients well.)

The sight of a Labour minister insulting doctors is a bit of a change from 1943, when the Labour Party produced its original pamphlet calling for a National Service for Health. The pamphlet is generally flattering to doctors and included these words: "The Voluntary Hospitals have rendered great service, and have been maintained by devoted effort, much of it unpaid."

But even then, there was a subtle sneer at the motives and backgrounds of doctors soon after: "Much of the medical work in these hospitals is done by "honorary staff" who receive no monetary payment, but who may thus gain prestige and reputation: generally it is those who can afford to take this road who find their way to Harley Street and to highly-paid consultant practices."

Not the use of the words "may" and "generally" to cover over the fact that this assertion (that the top doctors were greedy toffs) was far from universally true. Note, too, the way in which the pamphlet entirely glossed over the fact that through this system, poor people were seen by the best doctors in the world at no charge - and, of course, without the long waiting which the Labour minister now, 50 years later, admits.

And note, too, the way that it is suggested that an advantage through family wealth and education is wrong and that seeking to be well-paid is wrong. We have since seen dynasties of Labour politicians - the Benns and the Morrisons (Peter Mandelson is the grandson of Herbert Morrison). Mandelson is also someone who has become rich out of his politics, being handed a high-paying job at the European Commission by his friend and patron Tony Blair, who himself has been the recipient of many free, luxurious holidays and can expect a huge income from speaking engagements and his auto-biography. If family advantage and seeking financial gain is evil, what does that make the modern Labour Party?