Tag Archives: Conservative

Is This Defending the NHS?

During his time as Tory leader in opposition, David Cameron has been at pains to portray his party as the party of the NHS pledging to protect and increase spending on the British health service. Alongside that he highlights how he is a proud user of the service – his most recent child being born at an NHS hospital, his other children having been treated by the NHS. Coming into government, the talk so far has been of saving money by cutting back on bureaucracy, reducing management but leaving front line services in tact. However the inadvertent leak and subsequent official confirmation of the scrapping of NHS Direct calls that promise into question, or at least the Tory definition of a front line service. The Liberal Democrats similarly made a commitment not to cut front line services, so again, is this Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) breaking a promise, or again do the Liberal Democrats have a different definition of a front line service?

What is even more galling about the whole announcement is that when you read the detail, they aren’t phasing out the nurse led medical helpline across the whole country. NHS24 and NHS Direct Wales the Scottish and Welsh versions of NHS Direct are continuing, it’s only in England that the nurse led helpline is being dropped in favour of the new NHS 111 service, a service where the staff on the phone will have sixty hours of training rather than nurses who have been through the same degree and level training as any other nurse working in the country. Essentially the English are being palmed off with a cut price imitation, whilst other parts of the UK continue with the full service.

It’s not as if this isn’t a popular service, it handles calls from 14,000 people a day and has been estimated to have saved other parts of the service hundreds of millions of pounds. Certainly on the occasions we’ve used it the choice was to phone NHS Direct, or pack the kids into the car for a trip to the local Accident and Emergency department. We have an out of hours GP service, but that is run by one person and when we have called it we have often had to wait a good while for a call to be returned. NHS Direct have always been a lot quicker in responding, and in a couple of situations where in the early hours of the morning we have been worried about a sick child have given us clear advice and saved us a trip to casualty. They’ve also given Beth advice when she was concerned over drug combinations when she has both been pregnant and also breast feeding – all advice that a telephonist with sixty hours training would not be allowed or qualified to give, and that the out of hours GP would just be too busy to provide. It seems doubtful if a call centre of primarily operators with a much reduced number of professional medical staff will be able to give the same level of service and support that for over ten years the English public have been getting, and the Scottish and Welsh public will continue to receive.

Following the announcement, discussion on Twitter has been taking place under the #savenhsdirect hash tag, and there is already a petition launched at http://www.savenhsdirect.co.uk/ – and there is already speculation that this change might go the way of the abolition of free school milk which was announced and then swiftly U-turned. It’s pretty clear that the axing of NHS Direct wasn’t intended to be announced just yet, so maybe we’ll have Andrew Lansley to thank in a few months for making another goof in letting the cat out of the bag so soon, and giving the Save NHS Direct campaign a chance to get going sooner rather than later!

The Mythical Ground Zero Mosque

There has been quite a bit of a furore of late over plans to “build a mosque at Ground Zero” in New York, the problem being that what’s proposed isn’t a mosque, and it isn’t at Ground Zero – not that that has stopped the American loony right from kicking up a fuss.

Over the past couple of days I’ve come across a couple of good links exploring what is going on. Charlie Brooker (@charltonbrooker) wrote an excellent piece for the Guardian that was published on Monday that is well worth reading, however today thanks to my friend Jonathan (@digitaljonathan) I came across this great clip of Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) talking about the mosque, and what the unfounded opposition to it could mean for the USA – it’s a little long, but very well worth watching.

Standing Up for England's Counties

There is a bit of a double act going on between Grant Shapps (@grantshapps) and Eric Pickles (@ericpickles) on Twitter at times with one promoting the other. One such bit of promotion came last week when Grant Shapps tweeted the following:

Eric Pickles standing up for England’s counties and 1,000 years of English history – http://bit.ly/aD1Z0Z

The link points to the Telegraph letters page of August 11th which part way down features this letter from Eric Pickles:

SIR – I share the public’s concern (Letters, August 9) at the recommendation of the Postcode Address File Advisory Board to delete counties from the Royal Mail’s address database by 2016. It speaks volumes that unelected officials regard our counties – and over 1,000 years of English history – as a “vanity attachment”.

But the new Government is taking steps to defend our counties. We have scrapped Labour’s gerrymandering which sought to break up the counties of Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk for electoral advantage and we are dismantling the tiers of regional assemblies and development agencies.

It is a response to the recent news that the Royal Mail will no longer include counties in official addresses – and as you can see Eric Pickles uses it as an opportunity to pledge to protect English counties.

I have to say I greeted that with a good deal of amusement, the reason being that I live in what was once the county of Berkshire one of the oldest in the country, which exists now purely as a ceremonial county, and it’s not been Labour gerrymandering for electoral advantage that has reduced the county to a mark on the map, it was the Tory Local Government Act 1972 that transferred a chunk of the county including the former county town of Abingdon to Oxfordshire in 1974, and then the previous Tory administration gerrymandering for electoral advantage that abolished the whole county in 1998John Gummer chose to ignore the recommendations of the commission leaving Berkshire with six unitary authorities.

So what is the effect? For us in our little village at a simple level it means significantly less representation. We have a single local councillor, who we can only vote for once every four years, for the other three years our opinion counts for absolutely nothing. Under the old two tier system we had representation at both local and county level, and many more opportunities to vote.

Looking wider, we now have six authorities fighting with each other. We saw it with the endless debates over housing allocation where Wokingham District fought and lost the battle with the other authorities – each authority purely focused on their own people. Even government documents such as this concede that the six small unitary authorities don’t work in the best interests of the people, check out this paragraph on page 5:

The unitary structure of local government across Berkshire makes it difficult for other stakeholders to engage on issues that cut across boundaries. This is further complicated by the range of political views and agendas within and across the local authorities, and by the fact that changes across other public sector bodies do not align with the Local Authorities or each other (e.g. Police, Primary Care Trusts and Learning and Skills Council)

The size of the authorities causes problems too, I remember a number of discussions with local teachers of the problems, for example the peculiarities caused by Wokingham outsourcing much of their education to next door Surrey, or the fact that school repair projects that were approved by Berkshire were dropped by Wokingham who had more limited funds. We still have the effects now more than a decade later with many students being educated in schools in adjacent authorities rather than their own, purely because villages in the west of Wokingham are closer to schools in West Berkshire, students in parts of Reading are closer to schools in Wokingham.

That also highlights a missed opportunity – Reading still doesn’t have one authority overseeing a strategy for the whole town. A large chunk towards the south east of Greater Reading is in Wokingham, indeed most of the University of Reading is in Wokingham. Over in the west another chunk of the town is looked after by West Berkshire. In both cases there is no clear divide between the areas, but the historic borders were retained.

So will the Tories stand up for England’s counties? I don’t know, but as a resident of the former county of Berkshire their past record doesn’t bode well for the future.

The Non-Election

The news broadcasts tomorrow will be full of the story about our non-election. In late summer Gordon Brown was getting really good poll ratings so speculation started that he would call a snap election.

In recent days the opposition parties have been playing up that Gordon Brown was weak and indecisive for not having made a clear announcement either to call one or rule one out. That is of course because anyone with half-a-brain realised that if the Conservative party managed to make it through their conference without hitting the self-destruct button they would rise in the polls and the Labour advantage would be gone – and it was the Conservative party conference last week.

The Conservatives had to produce a good conference for a possible snap election, but a good conference was all the reason Gordon Brown needed to not call that election. Only an idiot would call an election years before he had to if he didn’t think he had a good chance of winning. As the week went on, the Conservatives held together, the grumblers in their party kept a low profile, and they got lots of good press. Gordon Brown looked at the polls and the positive reactions to the Conservative conference and has ruled out an election.

I seriously didn’t expect a decision until now, and David Cameron is a liar if he says that in the same situation wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing. Would he have had the balls to go to the country with the polls looking so tight? Of course he wouldn’t – politicians are well skilled in the art of keeping power, and any politician given the choice would have done the same – so why in that case do we have to sit through what will be days of sniping that will inevitably come now?

And to think they wonder why millions of people in this country don’t vote!

Which Way Will It Go?

Before the fall out from the convention has even settled, it looks like the election of a new Bishop of Newark, a post previously held by John Shelby Spong, is going to cause more arguments, as one of the four candidates is gay. The diocese have said that the committee deliberately avoided discriminating against candidates on the grounds of sexual orientation. Essentially, they have handed the decision to the members of the congregations in the Newark diocese, and as with the recent election in California it will be their choice of Bishop that will ultimately trigger, or avoid more arguments.

In the UK, Ruth Gledhill’s article in the Times yesterday that assumed that any Anglican covenant would be defined in terms of the conservative position has produced a swift response from Colin Slee, pointing out firstly that no covenant has been defined, and also floating the question as to whether many congregations in the wider Church of England, such as his own in Southwark, would sign up to it either. This offers the possibility that the Church of England as a whole may find itself theologically closer to the liberal provinces that include Scotland and New Zealand as well as the US and Canadian churches than the conservative provinces in Africa and Asia, and drafting a much more liberal covenant than the conservative churches could stomach. This of course raises the possibility that ultimately it may be these conservative provinces that will find themselves excluded, rather than the liberal wing.