Measure us by the things that really matter

Published by the Observer in its "The New York Times" supplement, an eight page selection of articles from that newspaper,  David Leonhardt, a financial journalist refers to "Getting Better" a book by Charles Kenney a British development economist based in Washington. 

In this book Kenney argues that life in much of Africa and in most of the impoverished world has improved at an unprecedented rate in recent decades, even if economic growth hasn't."The biggest success of development" he writes" has not been making people richer but rather has been making things that really matter - things like health and education - cheaper and more widely available.  The world , he said, had paid too much attention to economic numbers.

Sorry but it's not possible to link this article as it doesn't appear on either the Observer or New York Times websites, however while there is some  danger in presenting the above out of context there does seem to be something important expressed here. In Western Europe the notion of economic growth, expressed in percentage terms has become the measurement by which  success or failure, is judged, and it is the predominant means by which comparisons are made as to the economic health of  nations. 

But what if we assessed the nation  by "things that really matter - things like health and education". Ah, you say but can we afford it?  The UK is one of the half dozen richest nations in the world.  If we can't afford it what are we spending our money on? 

One of the mantra's of this government  and previous administrations has been to find new meanings for  the word "choice",  linked with words such as "patient" or "parent" or attached to electricity or gas suppliers or telephone or broadband providers.  When it comes down to it we think we have a choice at elections, and once upon a time we voted in representatives to make choices for us based on their manifestos, but not any more it seems. For we are all consumers now. 

The point is that governments are in reality saying that because you are a consumer and because as a consumer you are more aspirational it is impossible, and by the way political suicide, to make choices for you. That is your responsibility.  They are also, and this is the point, admitting that  no country on earth is rich enough to satisfy each and every  citizen/consumer.  It is not our job to tell you not to buy an expensive imported car, or upgrade your PC, or limit your holiday expenditure. 

So what happens if the country becomes a little less rich? Does the government maintain spending on those things that really matter? Of course not, because it's your choice. If you want first class health care you pay for it. If you want first class education for your kids you pay for it. If your kids want to go to university, you pay for it, or in reality they pay for it, but it's their choice after all.  But to do so you must spend  less on other things, which in these aspirational times is a hard choice. Haven't the income to do any of these things, the implication is that's your choice too.

Now what would happen if the country becomes a little less rich, but the government ceased to use the word "choice" as a covert excuse for letting things take their course, and said, these are the things that really matter and these are our and your  priorities. No market in education or health, they are accessible to all irrespective of income, We as a country want to be measured by the things that really matter. Well to some this may sound like a nanny  state, while to others it may sound like a fair and just society. Perhaps after all, choice isn't worth a dime.

Ten Labour Candidates in Mid Devon

Now, this is the news you have been waiting for.  Labour have 10 candidates who will  contest eight wards in Mid Devon.  No more will you have to weigh up the virtues of a Conservative and a Lib Dem with the odd Independent thrown in. No more will you anti Tories have to force yourselves to put your mark against the name of the only opposition in the hope that the forces of neo-reactionism will be dispatched to the outer margins.

OK, What we mean is that you can now vote for your preferred Labour candidate in wards as follows:

Taw              Pamela Galloway

Taw Vale       Mike Bartlett

Upper Yeo     Susan Sharratt

Yeo               Justin Beament and Nannette Brown

Lawrence      Deirdre Moffatt and Jim Clawson

Boniface        Reg Barker

Way              Jane Tizard

Cadbiury       Janet Ann Wills

How Complicated is the Alternative Vote?

Have a look at this link. The flow chart clearly shows why AV is simpler, well, assuming like almost all of us in Devon you have to think tactically before you cast your vote.

http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2011/01/17/how-complicated-is-the-alternative-vote/

Osborne's meanest silent trick

Good old Boy George.  The Osborne person has excelled himself.  Did you think that you had heard it all in his Budget speech? Of course you did, but think again. OK so there is  a lot of paperwork that accompanies a budget, but you would have thought that the wallpaper heir would have had the nerve not to paper over a policy that will effect every person over 80 in the country and announce it in his speech, especially considering it was one of the shortest in modern times.

So if lack of time wasn't the problem it must have been some other reason.  No prizes for guessing, just look him in the eyes. And what about  PRDave,  who pledged during the election  not to cut winter fuel allowances. who is now an accomplice to what must be one of the meanest tricks yet played by this government.

In 2008 Labour introduced an additional payment of up to £100 on top of the basic £250 pensioner's winter fuel payment. This has continued every winter since but the two millionaires are scrapping the top up from next winter.  To add insult to injury a Treasury spokesman argued that the government is not cutting anything, but simply allowing the top up to expire.

And the cost?  Well there are about 2.4 million pensioners over 80. who receive the extra £100.  It's simple calculation.

No, No and No to a healthcare market

Yesterday the BMA passed a series of motions extremely critical of the NHS bill now before Parliament.  It is worth considering what are the implications of these proposals. There is some justification to fear that they will lead to a break up of the NHS.  "Any willing provider" will be able to takeover any of the services provided by the NHS. The danger is that our NHS will be reduced to a logo, backed by public money, while unaccountable profit-making companies will run services. Worse still, the bill gives the health sector the task of making sure the NHS abides by EU competition law, making it almost impossible for services to return in-house once they have been put out to tender. It is effectively a one-way ticket to NHS privatisation.

The risk of proceeding with these reforms is substantial. The NHS is already making unprecedented savings of £20bn over the next four years. Job losses, cuts and disruption to services will increase and become highly visible. Forcing the NHS into the biggest reform package in its history is a sizeable risk. Core parts of the proposed changes, like GP commissioning, are untested, and will be fraught with implementation difficulties.

With the formation of up to 500 GP consortia, all free to set their own priorities, a highly visible postcode lottery will develop. The financial success of each GP consortia will also affect the service that their patients receive. It will influence the type of care provided and how long it lasts. Some patients needing hospital treatment may, because of financial restraints, find waiting lists extended into the next financial year.

Providing more choice to patients has done very little to improve quality. Most people when offered a choice opt for their local hospital. Choice may be important, but for patients it comes below the quality, speed and accessibility of care.

GP commissioning is central to the reforms yet it is highly controversial and will be very difficult to implement. It could easily be undermined by a lack of expertise to fulfil the commissioning role amongst GPs. Any gap would inevitably be filled by private firms. These reforms would therefore result in the increasing privatisation of our health service.

The proposals also introduce a potential conflict of interest for GPs in advising their patients, as they would become both service provider and service purchaser.

Two thirds of GPs oppose the plans to force practices to join commissioning consortia, and almost all say that the profession should have been consulted in advance.  The BMA has said that it will put ‘absolutely everything’ on the table including strike action when it determines the medical profession’s response to the Government’s NHS reforms at a meeting this week. Doctors’ leaders have set out a series of demands to ministers they say must be met before they can support the health bill, including amendments to ensure GPs are free to co-operate with hospital specialists and to scrap moves for providers to compete on price. And why is there no pilot of the scheme? The NHS has undergone major restructuring 15 times in the past 30 years, with little or no evidence that these reorganisations have made any improvements.

The 'any willing provider' approach in an expanded NHS market will see many new entrants, including international corporations, competing to treat NHS patients. There is a proven threat to quality of care from involving profit-led companies in the provision of healthcare. Private healthcare providers, for example, have been known to “cherry-pick” the less complex patients. The quality of work done in private treatment centres has been seriously criticised by NHS surgeons and their professional bodies. The danger is that these private companies will inevitably put profit before patients.

There is also a real danger of a two-tier service developing. While providers will compete for contracts in more affluent areas, poorer communities could struggle to sustain a comprehensive range of healthcare of a comparable standard. The increasing trend to allow personal top-ups to the funding of NHS care will widen the divisions between those who can afford to pay and those who can't. 

This is what markets do. They create hierarchies of service, not universal excellence.

Stride stays silent as Devon people go hungry

  What exactly does our MP Mel Stride do other than hire himself out to Tory councillors who tip him off for endless photo opportunities? His website is no help as the last entry is 25^th October when he notes that he enjoyed some bird watching at the RSPB’s Exe Estuary reserve.

Where is he while more than 350 redundancies have occurred in his constituency in the last few weeks and 200 hundred hungry people a week in Okehampton are having to depend on food donated by locals to build up a food bank?

This apalling idictment of government policies is happening on his doorstep while Mr Stride is publicly welcoming the Government's new welfare system as marking the beginning of a new era of 21st century welfare. Mr Stride is quoted as saying: "These reforms show that this government is on the side of people who want to get ahead….these measures will get people into work “

But Mr Stride seems to have decided to adopt a 19^th century paternalistic approach to his constituents, He seeks to establish himself as the all round caring good egg who will without question attach himself to a local issue as long as it doesn’t dent his credentials as an ultra government loyalist and is totally uncontroversial.

In this way he is following in a grand Tory tradition, adopting the role of the local squire, who would invariably have been the figurehead for any local good cause. The loan of whose name and face would be a sure-fire seal of approval.

Perhaps Mr Stride feels that his photographic presence in local newspapers is reassuring, however together with his bland notes from Westminster and press releases that also appear in some sections of the local Devon press, his attitude   to the electorate can only be described as condescending.

Where is Mr Stride when it comes to real issues that affect local people: cuts in frontline policing and bus subsidies; the Crediton link road, youth unemployment, the scrapping of the EMA, the cost of fuel, the removal of security for many council house tenants on benefits, the reduction in forces pensions and cuts in children’s and young people’s services, now unemployment and hunger at the heart of his constituency

Perhaps he doesn’t see any photo opportunities attached to these issues, however comfortably seated behind Cameron on the government benches, he is probably more concerned with a possible future call-up to a junior ministerial post.  

Opposition to NHS changes hardens

Structured and meaningful opposition is mounting against Lansley's NHS changes, first the BMA have called a special conference which might result in a vote of no confidence in Lansley, secondly the LibDem Conference has voted against the changes.  Read about these developments  in 2 New Statesman articles:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/03/bma-health-nhs-lansley

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/03/nhs-reform-health-bill-public