Friday 31 December 2010

If only we were more equal like Denmark

Today it was revealed that  NHS consultants pay has increased by  68% since 2000, to over £120,000 a year.  Compare this to nurses whose pay has risen by just over 30% in the same period to a little over £30,000.

While Bevan was forced to bribe doctors to accept the NHS  in 1948 ( see previous blogs), what is the reason for this generosity?  Well here is a theory.

It seems to be a law of the pay jungle in Britain, certainly since the 70's, that the higher the salary the greater the percentage increase.  For example taking 1980 as a baseline, cleaners  increased their income in the next 30 years by threefold, white collar workers by fourfold, nurses, teachers and police by fivefold, doctors by nearly sevenfold, and heads of large corporations by almost fifty fold,

Britain is one of the least equal societies in the western world.  No wonder that the lowest paid are feeling  PRDave's cuts the most.  The law of Osborne's jungle is the less you earn the larger the percentage cut, the larger your income  the less  percentage cut. But of course there is another principle on which the Tory cuts are based, the young lose the most, the old the least.

There was a letter in the Independent responding to previous correspondents who were prepared to accept tax rises to pay for education etc. This letter writer refused to countenance a tax rise because a one percent cut would mean losing £350 on his yearly salary of £40,000.  Just one pound a day.  The cost of the Independent! 

Politicians lose the NHS plot


Two letters from Thursday's Independent that sum up two different perspectives  views of Tory's  planned NHS reorganisation

The reorganisation of the NHS outlined in the White Paper is irrelevant to the needs of the health service. Its introduction will cause harm in the short term as managers and clinicians try to find out what they should be doing, and in the long term will make very little difference.
Politicians have lost the plot when it comes to NHS organisation. Once it was designed as a top-down system with the District Health Authority as the basic building block. Money came from central government and was distributed to hospitals and GP practices by the DHA according to need, based on population and disease. It worked, but was grossly underfunded.
Then in 1990, under Kenneth Clarke, it was changed to a "grocery store" type of organisation. The DHA was abolished. In its place the community, based on GPs, became purchasers and secondary services (the hospital) became providers. The internal market was supposed to improve services as competition improves grocery provision.
The reality is that patients with diseases are not as simple as selling apples and cornflakes. So when the increased funding came, as it did under Labour, much of the benefit was wasted propping up this inappropriate model. After 20 years no political party is prepared to admit they are wrong and end the failed experiment of the internal market.
Until we return to a top-down planned system, we will be spending ever more on management and less on clinical services. We need a co-operative Health Service not a competitive one.
Professor Peter D O Davies, Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital

 
The Government's health service policy is more subtle and more dangerous than your leading article "Andrew Lansley's gamble with the nation's health" (7 December) suggests.
Passing of commercial and administrative responsibilities to the doctor will require formation of units to manage this. These commercial units will become responsible for employing doctors, and not the other way round. Doctors will become factotums of these organisations, whose main responsibility will be to make money for shareholders or cut expenditure for the Government, and in the end the patients will be related to the organisations rather than to their family doctors.
This is happening now, as I notice that the practice (now called a health hub) where I had a relationship with my doctor (retired) is now serving me with doctors who come and go, half a dozen in the space of a year.
The traditional invaluable support which the individual had from his family doctor will be lost.
Matthew Wallis, London SW6

Thursday 30 December 2010

The myth of choice in the fees debate

Read this letter published in the Guardian today, it makes sense.

The Guardian,

    Do others feel deeply patronised by the appointment of Simon Hughes to "frame an effective message" about the changes to further and higher education (U-turn hint, 29 December)? The government's assumption is that those who protest have misunderstood the facts. But the coalition's policies are filled with contradictions; one lies in the pervasive rhetoric of choice. Students will take their loans and choose the best university for them, producing a free market in higher education that will lead to the growth of some institutions and academic subjects and the collapse of others. Citizen petitions will select new laws to be debated in parliament. This rhetoric merely conceals the coalition's appeal to economic necessity: there is no choice, they tell us. If you oppose our attempts to reshape public services, or higher education, you are being childish, failing to face the facts, disrupting the great work of national recovery. You are part of an almost "feral" mob. This technique is familiar to all parents: if a child resists (going to school etc) offer a small trivial choice which creates the illusion of control. Would you like the Moomin lunch box or the Fireman Sam one? What this tiny area of choice tries to conceal is the child's lack of autonomy. But, as every parent also knows, there are choices, and they are made by the parent. Economists disagree over the economic crisis; the coalition's deeply ideological "reforms" are not driven by economic necessity and it is this knowledge that leads large numbers of citizens, of every age, class and level of education, to take to the streets. The fear of dissent is what drives the violence with which protest is being policed. As a member of that "feral" mob on 9 December – and mother of injured student Alfie Meadows – I know that a party which could not gain a majority at surely the most propitious moment in recent history is trying to use the language of necessity to bring in changes that will reduce equality. Susan Matthews Roehampton University

Wednesday 29 December 2010

Unemployment set to hit 17-year high

The Private sector 'cannot absorb government job losses.'  Claims the Independent today. It reports that

“Fresh doubt is cast today on government claims that the private sector will be able to absorb the 330,000 jobs ministers admit will be lost in the public sector by 2015.  According to a major report, unemployment next year is predicted to soar to a 17-year high of 2.7 million, which will add to fears of a "jobless recovery."

The Independent quotes the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, representing the nation's human resources managers which reports that

For those still in work, wage rises will run far below the level of inflation.

Job losses in central and local government will be higher than those envisaged by the Office for Budget Responsibility.”

The pace of private-sector job creation will also be slower than the government forecast.

Public-sector employment will fall by 120,000 in 2011 – and private-sector employment will also decline by 80,000.

Private-sector jobs that are created tend not to be secure, well-paid positions with benefits such as a pension linked to salary and generous paid holidays.

Many of the new private-sector jobs created during the recovery so far have been part-time, temporary and casual in nature,

Of the 350,000 fresh private-sector posts registered by the Office for National Statistics between the first and third quarters of this year, virtually none was full-time.

Around 1.6 million Britons are officially classed as working part time or temping because they cannot find suitable permanent work.

Jobs will be in the wrong places and require the wrong skills from the point of view of public-sector staff now facing redundancy.

The damage to living standards, for those hit by redundancy over the next few years and unable to move for family reasons or because of the level of house prices in the South-east, where most of the jobs are likely to appear, will be devastating.

Even for those able to cling on to employment, 2011 will see their living standards undergo one of the toughest squeezes since the end of the Second World War.

The Report concludes

“Combating the resulting regional and local jobs deficit will require a much more detailed and comprehensive strategy for economic growth than anything the Coalition Government has so far shown any signs of formulating.”

"Add in the possibility of employment disputes and social discontent arising from the fiscal squeeze and public-sector job cuts, and it's not hard to conclude that 2011 could prove to be a troubled year all round."

Give thanks to the "chattering classes"

There's a typical article in the Telegraph attacking what it calls the chattering classes because it is they and they alone, the article maintains, who are responsible for PRDave's u-turns on school sports and Bookstart. Why not have a read. It's at 


Well it's an interesting thesis because it is blindingly obvious that true to his calling PRDave  knows that celebrities of all sorts make news.  So when numerous sports stars started waving their gold medals in protest against  Gove's axing of the 450 School Sport Partnerships, set up by the Labour government with a £162 million annual grant, PRDave  quickly recognised  a major public relations disaster in the making. 

Likewise the cutting of Bookstart's £13m grant just before Christmas has invoked, with the active help of a medley of eminent authors, comparisons with a parsimony characteristic of Scrooge.

The lesson is clear.  We don't need politicians to oppose this government and to undermine its leader.  They can Twitter as much as they like but it will make no difference.  Cadres of celebs, cultural icons and popular idols in every walk of life must be recruited to harass this Tory government to such an extent that it loses the  public relations battle every time. What then PRDave?  However that still leaves Osborne, obsessively counting his pennies in his Treasury bunker.  Suggestions please.

Simon Hughes stands on his head for PRDave



What is Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats thinking he is doing, by accepting the unpaid job of selling the Government’s unpopular higher education reforms to prospective students?

Hughes, who it is assumed is on the left of the LibDems, will tour schools and colleges to discuss the policy with the students and report their concerns to Clegg and PRDave.

In an admission that he is losing the propaganda war, PRDave, in his letter appointing Hughes, claimed there was a “material risk” poor schoolchildren would be put off by “misinformation” from applying to higher education institutions or staying on to study A-levels.

Hughes up to now has been a popular figure in the party and his acceptance of the new role is a sign of how seriously the leadership takes the fall-out from the tuition fees vote.

However Hughes has now opened himself to ridicule, because less than three weeks ago he threatened to vote against the policy he will now be promoting. It is unlikely that students will take Hughes seriously as a messenger of a Tory government that most young people despise.

Hughes by his unconvincing stance during the run up to the tuition fees vote and acceptance of this job is now in danger of losing the respect of those in his party and those outside it who consider principle to be at the centre of the political argument.

Tuesday 28 December 2010

Does it figure?


Figures and statistics are on every page of the newspapers. For example, the Guardian on Monday 27 December published the result of an ICM poll. Support for Labour is 39%, Conservative 37% and LibDem support 13%, a 5 year low.

A little earlier in the month the YouGov/Sun poll of 23 December had Labour at 41%, Conservative 38% and LibDems 10 %.

What do these polls tell us?  Well, if we had an election on the 23 December Labour would have had a majority of 34, or so the statisticians would have us believe.  So, all Ed Miliband has to do is keep a low profile, wait for various factions of the Government to mutter something mildly incriminating to the milkman or plumber about those right/left wing bastards who haven’t a clue and PRDave’s coalition will fall. Maybe.

However, while the figures may not prove it, there seems to be little resistance in the eyes of the electorate to Labour undertaking a considered policy review, particularly when the Tories after years of opposition are galloping ahead with such ill conceived legislation that they are doing Labour's work for it. We can but hope.

On another page, an Oxford University study has found that the average British male’s weight has increased by 4.7kg (10.4lbs) over the last 15 years perhaps, it surmises, due to a decrease in physical activity.  While women whose average weight has increased by 5.4Kg (12lbs) it guesses are just eating more.

Could this be because as Alex Hawes in the Guardian writes “Cheap food policies are rearranging UK landscape.” Over the past two years 577 new food supermarkets have been approved, with Tesco leading the way at 392 new stores. Yes, we know that a new Tesco is the quickest way to destroy the high street of any town. But then our local and district councils who give them planning permission are not entirely blameless, are they? . Perhaps the gains in weight are not Tesco's fault, but men do you walk to the shops anymore? Have  women fallen for the temptation of choice on offer at their edge of town store?  

Or can we blame women’s greater disposable income, and increased parity with that of men, well no.  Taking Mid-Devon,  women in full time employment earn on average £363 per week, which is £97 per week less than your average male. And although wages are higher elsewhere, about 20% in the UK as a whole, the difference between male and female wages is about the same all over the country.

Do you now feel more informed? At least if you are a labour supporter the goodish news is that Ed Miliband achieved the only net positive score on all issues asked in the ICM survey.

23% think 2011 will be a better year for Cameron while 36% thought next year would be worse, only 12% thought Clegg’s prospects would improve next year against 47% who thought he will have a worse 2011.  

A whole 29% think it will be a better year for Miliband and a measly 27% worse, Hurrah.

If by any chance you are interested in polls and statistics you can go to    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/   Good luck.




   

  

Wednesday 22 December 2010

Vince Cable boasts a nuclear option

How clever of the Telegraph to send two young reporter "mums" Holly and Laura to charm Vince Cable into showing off how smart, clever and powerful he is, or had been by the time PR Dave caught up with his boasts and took away his favourite MurdochZapper toy.  

It's nothing new for  LibDems to mutter about the  discomfort of coalition in the privacy of their tepees. However, Vince lacking minders like those invariably posted on the doors of the powerful in the movies, who routinely frisk visitors for offensive weapons, fell for a trick that has revealed the base instincts of ex royalty and a national football manager.   At least Vince wasn't after a payoff, although it seems the frisson of female approval  loosened his tongue more effectively than offers of money. 

Throughout the day media commentators tried to second guess PR Dave's response to Vince's observations on the "battles behind the scenes", his "nuclear option", on "policy being rushed out", and how he blames the 'cack-handed' Tories. Would Dave sack him?  Is the unity of the coalition at stake if he does?
 
Cunning old Telegraph, they didn't tell all did they?  Robert Preston, who in times gone by has demonstrated the uncanny knack of scooping his peers, turned up in the afternoon on the BBC, not only with the news that Vince had also revealed that he was gunning for Rupert Murdoch's proposed takeover of BSkyB, but with the tape itself.  It's one thing to read the transcript, but in a strange way an anticlimax to hear the authentic echoing voice of Vince and the appreciative squeals of his "constituents" as he flexes his ego, in a barely heated, bleakly furnished office, that MPs typically reserve for their infrequent surgeries,

By late afternoon and evening war with Murdoch takes precedent over the "nuclear option".  Funny world. The Culture Minister is handed the job of pacifying Murdoch and things media, and Vince who survives with a slimmed down portfolio is now kicking himself that he agreed to appear on the Christmas edition of Strictly Come Dancing.  Just imagine the comments of the Panel.

Not even the revelations of MP's expenses led to the purchase of the Telegraph.  But  for the first time in twenty years  it has gained a reluctant reader. Unrivalled for pompous  letters from indignant Tories, try this example.

 SIR- During the last Test I more than once heard international cricketers refer to batters. The correct, historical word is batsmen; so is this yet another example of political correctness?

However , surprise surprise Mary Riddell's article The NHS warning signs that should horrify David Cameron  is worthy of the Guardian, which to be honest has been, ever since it backed the LibDems in the Election, lacking authenticity.

However, the Telegraph shall remain as before and for the foreseeable future only a furtively read headline on the newsstand.  
For Mary Riddell's article go to:

Monday 20 December 2010

The economics of recovery

Another must read article from the Observer that explains clearly and precisely the economics of recovery.
 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/19/coalition-big-banks-umployment-tuition-fees/print

Tory MP calls for "chaos" to replace planning

This article published in the Observer is a must read if you want to have the clearest insight yet into Cameron and the Tories ambitions....

 The comments were made during a Westminster debate hosted by Ipsos MORI  see the full video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R1UpsQMDD4&feature=player_embedded

A key member of David Cameron's inner circle was filmed stating that the prime minister and his deputy, Nick Clegg, want their "people power" revolution to unleash "chaotic" effects across local communities.

The comments, by Nicholas Boles, Tory MP for Grantham and Stamford, were made during a debate hosted by the polling organisation Ipsos MORI.

During a question-and-answer session on the "big society", Boles – viewed by Cameron's circle as an "outrider" for imaginative thinking on policy – was asked why he seemed to prefer "chaos" to central planning of services.

Boles replied that he, Cameron and Clegg did not believe in central planning and that it would be a good thing to have different communities offering differing types of services, even if the appearance was chaotic.

"I mean, bluntly, there comes a question in life," he told the audience. "Do you believe planning works? That clever people sitting in a room can plan how people's communities should develop, or do you believe it can't work? I believe it can't work, David Cameron believes it can't, Nick Clegg believes it can't. Chaotic therefore in our vocabulary is a good thing.

"Chaotic is what our cities are when we see how people live, where restaurants spring up, where they close, where people move to. Would you like to live in a world where you could predict any of that? I certainly wouldn't. So I want there to be chaotic in the sense I want lots of organisations doing different things, in different areas."

Contacted by the Observer, Boles did not try to withdraw the remarks but said he had merely been trying to explain that in his view central, top-down planning did not work and local variations in services could be a good thing. 

But his remarks will be a serious embarrassment to the coalition after local government secretary Eric Pickles announced the most severe cuts in local government funding for a generation, with some of the poorest areas receiving the biggest reductions.

On the back cover of his recently published book Which Way's Up?, Boles is described as having been "one of David Cameron's most influential advisers before the election".

Tonight Labour accused the coalition of destroying local services for ideological reasons. Shadow local government secretary Caroline Flint said: "Nick Boles' alarming comments reveal how out of touch David Cameron and Nick Clegg's government is with ordinary people. They want to bring chaos to towns and cities simply to satisfy their own ideological curiosity."

Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham, who wants Labour to develop its own vision of a "big society" based on strong local institutions, said: "This reveals that the Tory approach to the big society is literally a recipe for chaos, bordering on anarchy."

At the same Ipsos MORI event Lord Adonis, the former Labour transport secretary, said the coalition should be careful not to suggest "chaos" as a desirable outcome of policy, warning that if they did there would be "shades of the poll tax". 

Boles' statements have echoes of comments made in 2005 by another key Cameron ally and one-time adviser Danny Kruger. He was forced to resign as a Tory candidate for Sedgfield after he was quoted as saying that the Conservatives "plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services".




Saturday 18 December 2010

NHS, from cradle to grave?

A local member of the Labour Party, a neighbour,  is angry at the Labour Party, because he says "It isn't the party I joined, I was born when the NHS was formed and it promised to look after me from cradle to the grave. It did the former but it won't do the latter."

It is worth thinking back to 1948 when Labour introduced the NHS.  It wasn't easy.  Aneurin Bevan, the Heath Minister fought tooth and nail the active hostility and opposition of the medical profession to get the measure through.


The NHS was the first national healtcare service that was free  Before the NHS many people could not afford  medical treatment. With its introduction it was as if  decades of untreated medical conditions were revealed for the first time.  Do we want to go back to those days.  See Blog NHS Marr's Modern Britain



Its worth taking some time to explore these events and the reason why the NHS was such a breakthrough for working people.

The Socialist Health Association website is worth exploring as it has a collection of Bevan's speeches, and explores the history of the NHS its rationale and prospective future.

NHS - Marr's Modern Britain

Coalition have been found out cutting corners

Introduction of immigration cap 'unlawful'

The High Court has overturned as unlawful the temporary cap of 24,100 a month for non-EU skilled workers to enter the UK

Yesterday the High Court ruled that the home secretary Teresa May had not gone through the proper parliamentary procedures before implementing the cap, which took effect without a vote in Parliament.

The Court stated. "The secretary of state made no secret of her intentions. There can be no doubt that she was attempting to side-step provisions for Parliamentary scrutiny set up under provisions of the 1971 Immigration Act and her attempt was for that reason unlawful."

The English Community Care Association which brought the action said 13% of those who work in care homes come from outside Europe, thousands of staff from the Philippines, India and South Africa could be forced to quit their jobs.

Damian Green Immigration Minister responded “We will do all in our power to continue to prevent a rush of applications before our more permanent measures are in place”

Shadow Home Secretary Ed Balls, for Labour, said the policy "may have sounded good before the election but it wasn't properly thought through and didn't get the scrutiny it deserved".

He added: "David Cameron's flagship election promise to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands has now been watered down from a firm pledge to just an aim."

The LibDems don’t like this policy and want the policy to be as flexible as possible so that businesses are able to recruit highly skilled labour when necessary.

Friday 17 December 2010

Can you imagine

If only this coalition government gave us time for reflection.  If only this coalition government gave themselves time to reflect.

The Rumsfeld-esque shock and awe tactics that are driving forward market based Chicago School style privatisation policies, are giving politicians, commentators and the public very little time in which to grasp the broad implications of policy, let alone the detail.

Of course, when the government artillery is being urged to fire rounds at an ever-increasing speed, accuracy is secondary to rate of fire, and ministry gunners lose sight of the agreed targets and friendly fire proliferates.

It is possible that Marshal Cameron, whose grasp of detail has never been his strongest point, must be regretting allowing his generals, Gove, Lansley, Clarke, and May such a free hand to set their own strategic targets and achieve them each in their idiosyncratic way.  Still Dave sees himself as a PR master and when he turns in for his eight hours he must be confident that whatever Clarke, may say about knife crime, in the morning he can find  words that the Mail can turn into the killer sound bite. He knows that selling policies, just like the man from the Pru of an earlier generation, is easy as long as the punters remain hazy about the small print.

But hold on, there are angry Tories.  These are Tory backbenchers who hate the LibDems for stealing their jobs, and behind them are the ranks of Tory local and county councillors who have to make cuts that not only get rid of “non jobs” which they needed an excuse to do anyway, but actual services that their electorate rather liked, depended on, even cherished.

And what about the civil servants who do all the work, who put together the white papers/ Are they smiling?  Ministry payrolls have been slimmed down; ministers are more demanding as speed is of the essence, and mistakes and errors of judgement necessarily creep in. Organisations jealous of their reputations, particularly those whose masters can change at the whim of a fickle electorate, always stick together when there is any hint of trouble. Some, after years of Labour power, may even like to engage in a game of gentle sabotage

So, Cameron’s nightmares are not about the opposition, who need time, not the media unless he upsets Murdoch, nor LibDems who might possibly refrain from voting with the coalition for some hazy conscience thingy, although Clegg has been reported as feeling rather low, and it’s never good to have a LibDem moping about the house.

 No, it’s his own right wing, who will never forgive Cameron for not winning the election outright.  Remember they only put up with his hug a hoody antics and sleigh rides because, after Howard and Duncan Smith, here was a man who would deliver a general election victory

Then there are the grassroots who voted for quiet man Duncan Smith as leader, and finally the mandarins of Whitehall who are fiercely protective of their departments and will do anything if needed to disassociate themselves from any financial disaster, just in case Osborne’s spending cuts have the effect that most economists forecast as the possible outcome.

So, is there a plan B?  The media seems to think that Whitehall has been busy making alternative fiscal plans, some even claim to have smelt them in the air. But can you imagine Osborne changing direction. Like Blair. who is digging up the grounds of his newly acquired £6m estate for unexploded bombs, Osborne is not a man to doubt himself no matter how the tealeaves read.  But, PR Dave cares which way the wind blows.

  

Thursday 16 December 2010

Mid Devon funding cut by over 27%

Yesterday Mid Devon District Council learnt that its funding for the year beginning April 2011-2012  will be nearly 16% less than this year.

A further cut of nearly of 13% on top of this figure has been announced for 2012-2013.

This means savings of over £1.5m will have to be made over the next two years. equivalent to a cut of over  26%  compared to the present level of funding.

With inflation currently running at  over 3% this means that Mid Devon will be forced to take some pretty unpleasant decisions in the years ahead. Let's hope the Tory dominated council's decisions aren't driven by the same ideology as the coalition.

Oliver Letwin appointed Health Minister Lansley's minder by Cameron.

The concerted attack on the Coalition's NHS plans has forced Cameron to appoint Oliver Letwin to overview Lansley's unprecedented reorganisation of the NHS.   The Labour Party, unions, professional bodies and interest groups have now been joined by the Commons Health Select Committee in questioning the viability, speed of implementation and rationale of Lansley's proposals.
Here is Shadow Health Minister John Healey letter to Cameron on the 1 December demanding answers. 

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/12/03/letwin-checking-up-on-lansley-john-healeys-letter-to-david-cameron/

However the question is has Letwin has been appointed to stiffen Lansley's resolve as he is attacked from all sides?

The following report from the Independent in 2004 doesn't bode well for any u-turn or softening of the Coalition's plans.  The good news is that it reveals exactly the ideology behind the proposals.

Letwin: 'NHS will not exist under Tories'

By Andy McSmith, Political Editor
Sunday, 6 June 2004

Oliver Letwin has reportedly told a private meeting that the "NHS will not exist" within five years of a Conservative election victory.
Oliver Letwin has reportedly told a private meeting that the "NHS will not exist" within five years of a Conservative election victory.
The Shadow Chancellor said that the health service would instead be a "funding stream handing out money to pay people where they want to go for their healthcare", according to a member of the audience.
The remarks, which have been furiously denied by Mr Letwin, were last night seized on by Labour as evidence of the Tories' true intentions towards the NHS.
It is not disputed that Mr Letwin met a gathering of construction industry representatives in his constituency of Dorset West on 14 May. During the meeting he urged the group of around six local businessmen to work together to win contracts for a new PFI hospital to be built in Dorchester.
Mr Letwin then astonished his audience, however, by saying that within five years of a Conservative election victory "the NHS will not exist anymore", according to one of those who were present.
Although Mr Letwin's aides later insisted that his remarks had been misinterpreted, it is the second time in recent weeks that his candour has landed him in trouble.
As reported in this newspaper, the Shadow Chancellor told a group of economists that it would be "irrational" to tell voters by how much he wanted to cut public spending. That prompted a gleeful Labour Party to claim that he had let slip a secret Tory plan to cut £135bn from the government budget.
Paul Boateng, the Treasury Chief Secretary, lost no time in seizing on the latest apparent gaffe.
"This proves what we have said all along," he said. "Oliver Letwin and the Tories want to abolish the NHS as we know it. The Tory agenda is one of cuts, charges and privatisation."
However, a Conservative Party spokesman said: "Oliver Letwin categorically said nothing of the sort. What he told the meeting was that within five years a Conservative government would have broken down the monolithic bureaucracy of the health service, putting decision-making in the hands of the hospitals rather than the Whitehall pen-pushers. The result will be a far more efficient and effective NHS.
He added: "As with a report two weeks ago that Mr Letwin had secret plans to make vast cuts in the public services, this report is complete fiction."

Wednesday 15 December 2010

The Tories with LibDem help are determined to priviatise the NHS


Ok, thanks Simon that's good advice. However, if you have  been following this blog you will have realised that one of the major issues facing us, in England, and only in England, is the future of the NHS. At first glance it may seem to be of little relevance who has control of 80% of the NHS budget: perhaps you may feel that consortia of GPs may be better placed to be responsible for front line services than primary health care trusts.

Do not be misled by false arguments that are being spread by the coalition. Make up your own mind.  Local LibDems in Central Devon in a 4 page tabloid called "Focus" are publishing distorted claims about the NHS, and "reasonable" Phil Hutty, LibDem candidate, an experienced Social Worker, who should know better has bought into this campaign.

Ask your doctor what he or she thinks. Nationally only 28% of GPs are for these proposals

Below is the template for a letter prepared by the NHS Support Federation that you can send to your MP.  To find detailed information and news  go to  


    
Dear

I am very concerned about the proposals within the NHS White Paper, so I would be grateful if you could help me represent the following views to the Health Secretary.

1. When cuts are being made, why spend more on this new system? Calculations by the Health service Journal suggest the new model could cost £1.2bn more than the current one.  York University estimated that admin and management staff costs are already almost 14% of the NHS budget - so that if you add on other transaction costs associated with running an NHS market then these reforms will increase the proportion of money directed away from direct patient care. It has been estimated
that the process of restructuring alone will cost between £2bn-£3bn.  So where are the overall savings?

2.  A postcode lottery will result. Huge differences in the arrangements for healthcare will emerge between areas - with the formation of up to 500 GP consortia all free to make set their own priorities. Patients could be forced to change their GP or relocate to another area to get the care they need.

3. The financial success of each GP consortia will affect the level of service that their patients receive. It will influence the types of care provided and the number of episodes of care that will be paid for. Some patients needing hospital treatment will inevitably be told by their GP, “Sorry, but you’ll have to wait until the next financial year.”

4. There is a proven threat to the equity, value and quality of care by involving profit-led companies in providing healthcare under NHS contracts. ISTCs cherry-picked the less complex patients. Out-of- hours arrangements have caused suffering and even deaths. The quality of work done in private treatment centres with NHS contracts has been criticised by NHS surgeons. 

5. There is a real danger of a two-tier service. Providers will compete for contracts in more affluent areas, leaving poorer communities struggling to sustain a comprehensive range of a healthcare of a comparable standard. The increasing trend to allow personal top-ups to the funding of care will widen the divisions between those who can afford to pay and those who can’t. This will clearly be seen in hospitals where the use of private pay beds will allow patients with less medical need to jump the NHS queue. What is your view? And how do you think we can raise these important issues within Parliament? Would you be willing to sign the national petition against the White Paper organised by the NHS Support Federation? You can do this at www.nhscampaign.org, where you will also find the sources for the statistics
in this letter.

The morning after a Central Devon Constituency Labour Party meeting

The morning after A Central Devon Constituency Labour Party meeting is a time for reflection, so have a read of this:


Simon Critchley on the Future

The-future What will be the defining issues of the coming decade? Consider the following three trends. First, ever-growing environmental devastation. Second, continuing growth of the already cavernous social inequalities between the rich and the poor that lead the rich to fear the poor and live in seclusion from them. Third, the further erosion of any remaining faith in liberal democracy and the precipitous slide away from "democratic capitalism".
If one has an interest in confronting and even reversing these three trends, then what is to be done? The first step is a systematic avoidance of the question of the future. That is, we have to resist the idea and ideology of the future, which is always the ultimate trump card of capitalist narratives of progress.
But in the name of what? How about in the name of the radical potentiality of the past and the way the past impacts on what we find possible in the present.
Revolution, as Walter Benjamin writes, "is a tiger's leap into the past". I suggest we make such a leap.
All we have to oppose these three trends is a radical understanding of history, a clear-sightedness about the structural injustices of the present and their causes, and a willingness to take action. We need to confront the drift, disappointment and slackening of this age with the urgency of commitment if we are to avoid disaster.
Simon Critchley is author of The Book of Dead Philosophers (Granta, £15.99) and How to Start Worrying and Stop Living (Polity, £12.99).

Tuesday 14 December 2010

NHS fares best on free access to healthcare

The following report in the Guardian 12 November makes interesting reading alongside  the  government's health plans

"Britain is the only country in the industrialised world where wealth does not determine access to healthcare, study finds

National Health Service doctors operating NHS patients have the best access to care at the lowest cost, according to a US study. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Britain's health service makes it the only one of 11 leading industrialised nations where wealth does not determine access to care – providing the most widely accessible treatments at low cost among rich nations, a study has found.

The survey, by US health thinktank the Commonwealth Fund, showed that while a third of American adults "went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs", this figure was only 6% in the UK and 5% in Holland.

In all the countries surveyed except Britain, wealth was a significant factor in access to health, with patients earning less than the national average more likely to report trouble with medical bills and problems getting care because of cost.

The survey, of 19,700 patients in 11 nations, found "substantial differences" among countries on access to care when sick, access after hours, and waiting times for specialised care.

About 70% of British patients reported same- or next-day access to doctors when sick, less than the 93% of Swiss adults reporting rapid access. In contrast, however, only 57% of adults in Sweden and the US, and less than half in Canada and Norway, were seen this quickly.

The NHS was also extremely cost-effective, with spending on health per person almost the lowest in the survey. A person in the UK paid $1,500 less than one in Switzerland and less than half the $7,538 paid by every American for healthcare. Only New Zealand, where one in seven said they skipped hospital visits because of cost, spent less per head.

The report was particularly damning about the US, where it found patients "are far more likely than those in 10 other industrialised nations to go without healthcare because of costs".

Nigel Edwards, acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said the report was a "good result for the UK. The issue in many other nations is that you buy insurance to cover for the price of expensive drugs. Or that you need co-payments on hospital treatments…"


Labour members get the lowdown on the NHS

Invited guest Terry Keefe Regional Officer of Unite talked about the future of the NHS to members of Mid Devon Labour branch at the Mitre, Crediton 13 December.

He begun by saying that the NHS as it exists should not be under valued. It is one of the most cost effective healthcare organisations in the world, but the government wants efficiency savings of £15-20bn, including reducing management costs by 45%.

However technological advances and people living longer will lead to unavoidable increases in costs. These will add 4%-5% in costs per year.   Therefore in real terms the NHS will be able to do less.

Terry Keefe explained that Strategic Health Authorities, which oversee and manage the NHS in the regions, would disappear by 2013 and groups of GPs will replace Primary Care Trusts. These groups would take charge of 80% of the NHS budget, commissioning mental health, hospital and community services from “any willing provider.” The NHS will keep all the larger properties, such as hospitals,

Doctors are split three ways in their reception of the proposals. If GPs are not prepared to run the commissioning there will be big problems. Clinicians, for example,  are not well quipped to construct business plans.

This means that GPs will inevitably commission out to private management or health companies The government wants as many NHS services as possible to be turned into social enterprises, but while these usually take 2 years to set up the government wants these in place in 4 months,

The Primary Care Trust in Devon will be replaced by three separate social enterprises, which means fragmented management across the county. Patients have not been consulted and staff expects to be re-employed under lesser terms and conditions. 96% of staff does not want to transfer to a social enterprise.

Terry Keefe pointed out the inadequate timescale for the changes. For example, the most successful social enterprises normally consist of 40-50 peoples but we are talking in the NHS of around 2500 people the only social enterprise that presently exists in the NHS is in Hull.

There has been no pattern to consultation. So much is changing at once, with so many different programmes and varied timescales. Terry Keefe forecast that next year would bring chaos

He added that changes will affect everything, for example NHS Direct will no longer be staffed by nurses but by advisors who will be given 6 weeks training.

He concluded that the changes would inevitably lead to more privatisation, probably an insurance base scheme, with the NHS becoming merely a brand.

This was followed by a lively discussion. which centred on the need for greater clarity about the proposals, public awareness  and how patients will be affected..


Can you believe what they are doing to the NHS!

The Commons Health Select Committee, chaired by former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell, reports that the NHS and local authority social services will be tested to the limit by Government cuts, which assume efficiency savings o£15bn and £20bn over the next four years.

The scale of these cuts is unprecedented in the NHS, or in any other healthcare system in the world.   The report says that the Department of Health does not have a "credible plan" on where the cuts will be made.

The committee also looked at adult social services because of significant crossover between these and the NHS.  Similar cuts will be made in local authority social service departments.  The report says the Local Government Spending Review "cannot fail to pose a challenge for the successful delivery of social care".

The committee are also concerned aboutt the costs of the government's proposed reorganisation of the NHS, and reports that  "It is unfortunate that the government has not yet provided even a broad estimate of the likely reorganisation costs; and it is unhelpful for the government to continue to cite £1.7 billion, as it does not relate to their specific proposals," the report says.

Nigel Edwards, acting chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents 95% of organisations that make up the NHS, agrees with the committee

"All at the same time, NHS trusts are grappling with unprecedented efficiency savings, major management cuts and radical structural reforms.  "It's a mixture that is causing real anxiety among NHS leaders."

The President of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services Richard Jones said a gap will open up between the needs and demands of older people and adults with disabilities, and the resources available to meet them.

 He added “it will be impossible in some authorities to maintain the standards of care we provide without restricting eligibility for those services."

labourlight: Tuition Fees

labourlight: Tuition Fees: "
And now its law

Sunday 12 December 2010

South West LibDems swing to Labour

Ipsos MORI’s monthly polls since the general election show that support has swung from the Liberal Democrats to Labour across the country, but much more sharply in some regions than in others.

These findings should convince Labour that it has everything to gain by putting up as many candidates in the May local elections as possible. 
In the North East, Liberal Democrat support has almost disappeared, falling to just 4% of those certain to vote, an overall swing to Labour of 19%, and they have lost half their support in London, with an 11% swing to Labour

In the South West, the Lib Dems’ strongest region at the election, the swing to Labour has been 16%.

Most recent polls have shown the LibDems well below that post-election average of 15% nationally, which suggests LibDems may well be even worse off now in many regions than these figures show.

The latest poll in today's News of the World puts Labour on 42%. Conservatives on 40% and LibDems on 9%


Friday 10 December 2010

Why Devon's police are retiring

While London's Metropolitan Police receive criticism for their handling of yesterday’s student demonstration and questions are asked about the attack on Charles' and Camilla’s Roller, a Devon and Cornwall Police Authority meeting in Exeter today agreed to force police officers to retire after 30-years service to save money.

All police forces in the country are in the same position but it seems contradictory that just as students, unions and interest groups, from mums worried about the future of Surestart to local authority workers contemplating an uncertain and perhaps jobless future, are demonstrating in numbers and with a ferocity unseen since the Poll Tax protests of 1990 which contributed to the fall of Margaret Thatcher, that this government is engaged in a reduction in the capability of the police.

Never mind the rhetoric about maintaining front line services.  Just wait until the first fatal mugging that can be directly attributed to insufficient policing.

Perhaps the Tories covertly accept statistics showing a fall in crime under Labour, and these are part of a hidden rationale for Justice Minister Kenneth “softie’ (according to Sun newspaper) Clarke’s, sentencing proposals.

Did you know that Police officers as crown servants cannot ordinarily be made redundant. But Police Pension Regulations allow for compulsory retirement of officers with 30 years pensionable service. The regulation states that compulsory retirement can be made "on grounds of efficiency of the force". It would be the first time Devon & Cornwall Police have used the regulation on mass.

This decision could affect about 500 officers in Devon and Cornwall. In total about 700 officers are due to be cut to help the force to make savings of £47m over four years

Devon and Cornwall Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, says it is "totally opposed" to the proposals and claims the force would be stripped of "experienced" police officers.

Whether they are experienced or just effective officers, it seems perverse that the party of law and order is tempting fate in this way.  Perhaps it would be cheaper to make officers buy their own uniforms, customise their family vehicles as squad cars and  share accommodation with Post Offices, after all there are more of them than Police Stations, just!


Another light on PMQ

And for more comment on Wednesday's Prime Minister's Question Time that definitely isn't from Murdoch's lips by way of the Sun go to:

http://www.politics.co.uk/sketch/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/pmqs-sketch-lib-dem-bashing-unites-cameron-and-miliband-$21386149.htm

No let up for the NHS

Every organisation that represents people working in the NHS is voicing alarm and lack of confidence in its future.  

The latest is the Federation of the Royal College of Physicians representing hospital doctors, which says there are not enough hospital doctors to deal with the 40% of the population, who make at least one visit each year to Accident and Emergency departments. This is a 5% increase on last year.

One of the reasons for the increase is the limited out of hours availability of GPs.

To compound the problem many hospital trusts are cutting back on staff and services to balance budgets.  The NHS is being asked to make £20bn efficiency savings by 2014.

This means fewer jobs for hospital doctors are being advertised and there may not be enough jobs in the future for all the doctors now training.

Because medical costs keep rising, Shadow health secretary John Healey said that the coalition promise to protect funding in real terms is not being kept. The £3bn projected to be spent on reorganisation is a massive waste of money.

Tuition fees the fight contunues on all fronts

What fun yesterday in parliament, but even greater fun and games outside.  Perhaps Charles and Camilla were sightseeing, feeling the vibes of "yung peeple".  Still more questions about the police tactics.  Back in parliament the LibDems were not happy and for your information her is how they voted.
 
FOR - 28 MPs

    * Danny Alexander
    * Norman Baker
    * Sir Alan Beith
    * Gordon Birtwistle
    * Tom Brake
    * Jeremy Browne
    * Malcolm Bruce
    * Paul Burstow
    * Vincent Cable
    * Alistair Carmichael
    * Nick Clegg
    * Edward Davey
    * Lynne Featherstone
    * Don Foster
    * Stephen Gilbert
    * Duncan Hames
    * Nick Harvey
    * David Heath
    * John Hemming
    * Norman Lamb
    * David Laws
    * Michael Moore
    * Andrew Stunell
    * Jo Swinson
    * Sarah Teather
    * David Ward
    * Steve Webb

AGAINST - 21 MPs

    * Annette Brooke
    * Sir Menzies Campbell
    * Michael Crockart
    * Tim Farron
    * Andrew George
    * Mike Hancock
    * Julian Huppert
    * Charles Kennedy
    * John Leech
    * Stephen Lloyd
    * Greg Mulholland
    * John Pugh
    * Alan Reid
    * Dan Rogerson
    * Bob Russell
    * Adrian Sanders
    * Ian Swales
    * Mark Williams
    * Roger Williams
    * Jenny Willott
    * Simon Wright

ABSTAINED OR ABSENT - EIGHT MPs

    * Lorely Burt
    * Simon Hughes
    * Tessa Munt
    * Sir Robert Smith
    * John Thurso
    * Stephen Williams
    * Chris Huhne(at climate summit in Mexico)
    * Martin Horwood(at climate summit in Mexico)

Government whip Mark Hunter (Cheadle) acted as a teller.

In addition, six Conservative MPs voted against the proposals, while two abstained. They were:

    * David Davis (against)
    * Julian Lewis (against)
    * Andrew Percy (against)
    * Jason McCartney(against)
    * Philip Davies(against)
    * Mark Reckless(against)
    * Lee Scott (abstained)
    * Tracey Couch(abstained)