Tories put Balance-Sheets before Bed-Sheets

Philip Hammond, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has outlined what the Tories will do to improve efficiency in the public sector. He has reiterated the pledges made by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference, which included a one-year pay freeze in the public sector from 2011, advancing the date for the state pension age increase and capping the biggest public sector pensions and then, he went further, suggesting that the Conservative Party would save £60bn per year through nothing more than increased efficiency. 
 

Mr Hammond announced that under Conservative proposals, public service providers will be paid only on what they deliver, schools will only be paid for each pupil they attract, hospitals only for treatments they provide and the Conservative's welfare to work programme will only pay for each person they get into a "sustainable job".

A more short-sighted plan it is hard to imagine.

My main concern is the effect this will have on the National Health Service. Leaving aside the effects on other Government services, which would require a much longer blog than I plan to write, let us consider the Conservative's latest plan to weaken and devalue the NHS. For example:

Hospitals will have no incentive to invest in the prevention of illness. 

Why stop smoking? The hospital won't get paid for that - but if you turn up, barely able to breathe, with a bad case of lung cancer: KERCHING!!! The Smoking Cessation Services across the country, that have helped people to quit smoking and eased the burden on the NHS will have to close.

The weight-wise programme will have to go!

Currently this service helps obese people to adapt their eating habits and stave off the potential heart disease, disability and cancers associated with their condition. All the obese people who urgently need this help can instead go and buy some chips! That way, the hospitals will get a nice windfall, when these non-patients start to keel over with a cardiac arrest or when they eventually need mobility care.

An End to Palliative Care

As part of cancer care, many hospitals fund additional, non-medical care, such as aromatherapy, reflexology and shiatsu massage, these therapies help cancer patients to cope better with the demands of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.  The consultation with a local wig provider, who is paid to come into the hospital and advise on wigs and scarves: that's not a 'treatment' either, so no doubt, that will end too.

The NHS is not a widget factory, banging out an end product with a set process.  The NHS does so much more than just "treat patients". It is a National Health Service, not a National Treatment Service. The 'outcome' of a hospital is not always providing a cure, often it is preventing the need for treatment in the first place. What does 'payment for treatment' mean for nursing homes and hospices?  What are their "results"?

Economics cannot always be the driving force in public services. Care for the elderly for example, is never economical, to try to make it so will lead to a huge failure in quality of care and availability of provision.

All Philip Hammond has achieved today is to further demonstrate why the Conservative Party cannot be trusted with health-care and our NHS.

Why Thatcher Should Issue an Apology

The cute little blue bear that is @ToryBear issued a decree that @CllrTim and @Bevaniteellie should issue an apology for a joke that was tweeted by the former and retweeted by the latter. At worst it was a joke in bad taste but no more so than many of the jokes that circulate on Twitter, from all sides of the political sphere.

In fact, it's the sort of joke that one might hear at a Jimmy Carr gig, one that pushes the boundaries slightly but only causes offence if it is being actively sought.

The real need, when it comes to apologies, is the one that the working classes are still waiting for from Thatcher herself, one they will surely never receive. The destruction of the coal-mining communities, caused by the arrogance and determination of one woman to crush and make an example of one man who dared to stand up to her and fight.

In effect, Thatcher declared civil war on the communities that relied on the coal industry. She sent the army and the police in force to stop the miners from defending their livelihood and she caused the complete destruction of society in these working class heartlands.

She did this with no care for the consequences, no concern for the families ripped apart, no thought for the generations of hopelessness and poverty and not one scrap of remorse for the blood on her hands as a result of her actions.

In communities like mine, the effects of Thatcher's legacy are still felt every single day. Every one of us in the UK is still paying for the regeneration schemes and rebuilding work that are needed to put right her vengeful acts. Millions of pounds - ironically ridiculously more than it would have cost to maintain the coal industry - have been spent in the pursuit of returning towns like Barnsley to the thriving communities they once were.

So, a joke in poor taste compared with the destruction of lives. The "Iron Lady" and her 'iron-will' cost more than she could ever imagine, but I doubt she has ever given it or us, a second thought.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Rely on the NHS

A while ago, I responded to an email from the Labour Party, asking for members to share their cancer stories. As you may know, I owe my life to the NHS - without the speedy intervention, surgery and chemotherapy I received, I would not be here now, my children would be without their mother and my husband would be without his wife. 

The two-week cancer care guarantee is vital to ensure that as many people as possible can fight cancer and beat it. Early detection gives the best chance of this and is an essential part of the process. Any cancer patient will tell you, the worst part is waiting, not knowing whether you have a life-threatening disease and worrying about the future for your children and family. The two-week cancer care guarantee means that this time is cut to a minimum.

Tory front-bencher Philip Hammond has claimed that the Conservatives also support the guarantee but this is in complete contradiction to the Conservative pledge to abolish all government-imposed clinical targets. Making a pie-crust promise is not what is needed in the fight against cancer, patient care demands targets for the detection and treatment of this cruel and indiscriminate disease. Labour want to make it a legal right for a patient to be given a specialist referral within two-weeks. Yet again this demonstrates which party can be trusted with our National Health Service - a service that Labour had to rebuild after 18-years of Tory abuse, of ward closures, neglected hospital facilities and a crumbling infrastructure.  Time and time again, the likes of Dan Hannan show the Conservative Party's true colours, the reality behind Cameron's 'party-of-the-people' facade. The simple truth is that the Tories cannot be trusted to protect the NHS and ensure it continues to provide healthcare to all, irrespective of wealth or ability to pay: free at the point of need.

The #WeLoveTheNHS trend was a fantastic example of just how much support there is for our National Health Service and an indication of the power of Twitter. This campaign, Rely on the NHS, #relyontheNHS, is an important demonstration of how much we value the care that the NHS provides. 

I am here for my family because I could Rely on the NHS. You can too, let's make sure it stays that way.  I urge you to please support this campaign and let as many people as possible know about the Two-Week Cancer Care Guarantee. Join us, Fight for the NHS and please sign the petition here:  www.relyonthenhs.co.uk 

(My own story is briefly detailed in the original blog I wrote, here, if you are interested)

PMQs Through the eyes of a ten-year-old

Yesterday I watched PMQs. This is not an unusual event but due to an outbreak of swine flu, (which thankfully, we are coming to the end of) I had company. Joining me was my ten-year-old son Harry.

If I am at home for live PMQs, I follow the #pmqs hash tag on Twitter, so today I thought it would be a good idea to invent a new hash-tag for PMQs: #harrypmqs. I asked Harry if he would watch with me and tell me what he thought so that I could tweet it. He agreed and I had the most enjoyable thirty-minutes of parliament that I think I've ever had.

The tweets are below, a verbatim reproduction of a ten-year-old's first impression of PMQs. Anything in [these] was something relevant that I said to Harry, just to give you the context in which he is speaking.

He needs to stick his hair down (Jamie Reed) #harrypmqs #pmqs

I was just told to be quiet, so Harry can hear what's going on! #harrypmqs #pmqs

How does the Speaker choose who speaks? If he's got a list, what if someone else comes up with a good idea? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Why do they always shout? #harrypmqs #pmqs

It's a bit rude isn't it? #harrypmqs #pmqs

What's point in all those ppl being there if only a few get to talk? [To hear answers] Why so they can go & tell their wives? #harrypmqs #pmqs

They might be being careful what they say because the cameras are there. #harrypmqs #pmqs

I bet they all go home & tell their kids not to be rude! #harrypmqs #pmqs

Say please!!! #harrypmqs #pmqs

[You're sounding like the manners Police!] Well, they're being rude, shouting! [This is quite good] *That* is good? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Why do they move onto another subject before the question has been answered? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Does he just answer the questions or does he actually do what they ask as well? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Is that where tax goes - to paying them? #harrypmqs #pmqs

So PMQs created lots of questions for Harry. I didn't expect him to understand the issues being discussed, but wanted his perception of the process. I think he did well for a first time effort!

There were a couple of things that really stood out for me. Firstly, he suggested that the people in attendance are listening to the answers so that they could go home "and tell their wives". A clear sign that he noticed the chamber was mainly comprised of men. Secondly, Harry mostly commented about the lack of respect for whoever is speaking, the word 'rude' featured three times, with many of his comments being about the etiquette of listening to the speaker and the shouting that was going on.

I also thought that the suggestion of adult hypocrisy, in saying that he would bet they all told their children not to be rude was insightful and his observation that the politicians may be watching what they say because of the cameras being there indicated a healthy political scepticism beginning to form already.

At ten, Harry was not partisan at all, he listened to everyone who spoke and judged them not by which party they stood for but by how they conducted themselves. While he didn't fully understand the issues being discussed, he was frustrated with the lack of actual answers to many of the questions and the way that the subject was changed, rather than a straight answer being given. Harry's final question, about whether it is tax that pays the MPs demonstrates that he noticed the media reporting of expenses and is aware that Parliament is paid for by the people.

When PMQs had finished, we had a chat about it and Harry said that if they all shouted out in class when someone was speaking, they would get into trouble. He asked how anyone could listen properly with all that noise. There were questions about what the MPs do next and he then asked if he could watch again next week. So it didn't completely put him off politics! 

I was proud of him for taking part and engaging so well, perhaps, as it was suggested to me, schools could engage with the political process by allowing children to see PMQs and it might just be the small step onto the path to political engagement that future voters need.

Christmas and Climate - How Boris Can Be an Even Bigger Hero Next Year

I'm going to come out right now and say that I LOVE Christmas. Mainly because I see the joy that it brings to our three children.  Everything from the annual trip to the farm to buy our tree and see the reindeer, the trip on Kirklees Light Railway's Santa Special, decorating the living room and wrapping presents. It's fun and exciting for the little ones.

The preparation on Christmas Eve, making a Lego house and painting pictures to show Santa, carrots for all the reindeer and a glass of Southern Comfort to accompany the big man's mince pie, all of this makes Christmas a lovely, family experience.  Of course, also part of the fun, is the Christmas lights that adorn every High Street and many houses.  We often have to detour on our way home so that the children can see the 'craziest' (most decorated) houses.

We often hear complaints about how early the Christmas stock begins to appear on the shelves in our supermarkets and shops and the playing of Christmas songs by radio stations is definitely a no-no before December. Why then are the vast Christmas lights of Oxford Street being switched on so early, on 3rd November? 

At a time when Climate Change is high on the agenda; with the UK signed up to Kyoto and legislation being affected to ensure targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases are achieved, surely it makes sense to consider the impact of Christmas lights.  I am not suggesting they be banned or any other ridiculous knee-jerk reaction, but what I am suggesting is that the 'big switch on' is delayed until the beginning of December. This will save a huge amount of electricity and assist with climate change action.

Boris Johnson made the headlines for saving high profile climate change activist and founder of the 10:10 campaign, Franny Armstrong from a gang of iron-bar wielding girls, who attacked her as she walked along the street in Camden. Perhaps he could help climate change again - more directly  - next year and have a more responsible approach to Christmas lighting in the capital.