So what? Maybe he genuinely feels that he would like to help out the NHS while being an MP.
But he has a full time job for which he's paid £86k pa. I've held jobs where I was paid near enough the equivalent to an MP's salary and there was no way I would have had time to "help out" the NHS or anybody else.
As @takno has said, he was probably one of the "Cameronite" Tories who believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Cameron-Osborne approach to the economy was the right one at the time. Perhaps he's now changed and realised it was a mistake.
That may well be so. But there have been three General Elections since he became an MP. Each one brought a considerable change of approach and each gave him the opportunity to jump the Tory ship if he did not like the way the wind was blowing. Nobody can suggest that the Tory package on offer in 2019 was anything like that offered in 2015.
It just sounds like you have sour grapes about the defection.
I have a general belief that an MP who loses the whip or resigns from the party under whose banner he was elected should stand down, force a by-election and stand under his new incarnation. The overwhelming majority of votes cast in a Parliamentary election in the UK are based on party grounds; it is unusual for an individual to attract votes. That belief holds good for any MP. Other than that I have no feelings one way or the other on his defection and certainly none of the "sour grapes" variety. The only thing I will say is that I don't quite see the point of Dr Poulter's defection. This Parliament has only a few months to run, much of which will be taken up by the summer recess and the conference season (if it lasts that long) and Dr Poulter has said that he will not seek re-election. I suppose at least during the remaining time he has left in his seat he will have ample time to help out the NHS.
I think it's you who are jesting here. This sounds exactly like something a Government minister would say! £3000 each may sound a lot but it's presumably not enough. To me it seems that the NHS does need more funding, why else is it in such a state? Your comment about it being "short of the organisational ability..." just sounds to me like blame-deflecting Government propaganda.
I'm not jesting by any means. In the couple of months after last Christmas Mrs Enthusiast had the misfortune to have to seek medical attention for a fairly serious problem. I have a log of the various interactions between her and the health service and it makes for pitiful reading. I accompanied her on most of her appointments to various hospitals and clinics and the service provided at most of them can only be described as shambolic (and that's being kind). Eventually, because of untold delays and various other administrative
cock-ups problems, she had to ditch the NHS and have the matter treated privately (which was accomplished in about ten days at a cost of slightly more than the £3,000 per year the NHS has allocated for every member of the population). We're lucky, we have the cash to do that. Many people don't.
The NHS has no shortage of either money or people. The problem it has is that many of the people it employs (and hence a lot of the money it spends) contribute little or nothing towards healing the sick. In fact, contrarily, many of them actually hinder that aim. So to answer your question, it is in a state because it is thoroughly disorganised. Reorganising many of its functions does not require shedloads of cash. It simply needs people with the skills to do so and who will discard remarks such as "that's how it's always been done." As an example, it is little wonder the NHS bangs on about missed appointments. It steadfastly refuses to inform patients of their appointments via e-mail or text (despite holding contact details to enable them to do so). Instead it insists on informing them of their appointments - determined unilaterally with no consultation with the patient to confirm they are convenient - only by letter. Incredible as it seems to their staff, letters are often delayed or lost entirely - a problem Mrs E suffered twice during her unsuccessful attempt to get the NHS to address her problem.
To change something like that requires very little money and certainly no permission or input from government, yet the benefits to both the service and its patients would be enormous. Of course there are many more serious and complex problems than that but the government does not run the NHS; it simply provides it with funding. Money has been poured into the NHS. In real terms its spend has increased by 27% between 2015/16 and 2022/23 and in addition to that £47bn and £40bn extra funding was provided in the two years of Covid. Yet outcomes for patients have deteriorated in that time, indicating that there are serious underlying problems that will not be cured by pouring ever larger sums of cash into its coffers. It isn't more money or staff the NHS needs. It needs to utilise what it has more efficiently and the current plethora of highly paid directors, managers and administrators seem unable to do that.
So I don't quite know what Dr Coulson means when he says he cannot look his NHS colleagues in the eye because I believe the problems the NHS faces are not those which can or should be cured by government. You only need to experience some of its shortcomings to realise that.