Guestbook
This page will not be in use until further notice
Select Videos in Menu
westminster ferret
The Surrey county council leader, David Hodge, said he had secured a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the government [Image: Surrey County Council/PA].
The Department for Communities and Local Government is insisting that there is nothing dodgy about the fact that Surrey will receive an increasing proportional of new money for social care funding, announced in the Budget.
It’s allocated in the same way as the Better Care Fund, a spokesperson said, raising questions about the way that particular pot is shared out.
Meanwhile, Labour’s Andy Burnham is to write to the Cabinet Secretary, the UK’s most senior civil servant, demanding an investigation into the whole affair, including whether the ministerial code has been broken.
The code demands that public office-holders are required, by duty, to be honest in all their dealings and business.
It seems clear that the Tory government has been busy doing everything it can to find a way of justifying increased funding for Tory Surrey – at the expense of all other counties in the UK.
One wonders whether the Cabinet Secretary will try to dismiss the call for an investigation out-of-hand, giving raise to accusations against the civil service itself, or actually have the guts to start in inquiry that could cast the whole government into disrepute.
As far as This Writer is concerned, the Tories – and PM Theresa May in particular – look as guilty as the proverbial “puppy sitting next to a pile of poo”.
Philip Hammond’s budget has handed the largest boost in social care funding to Surrey council, according to calculations made after government ministers were accused of reaching a “sweetheart deal” with the Tory-led authority.
Analysis by Labour shows that out of the £2bn of new money for social care in England announced in Wednesday’s budget, Surrey will see the biggest increase in the share of funding by the 2019/20 financial year.
The analysis says that Surrey will get 1.66% of the money, rising from 0.75% in 2017/18, an increase of 0.91 percentage points in the three-year period – more than double the increase of the second council, Hertfordshire.
Theresa May has repeatedly denied Surrey will receive any form of funding not available to other local authorities, after the council last month called off a planned referendum on increasing council tax by 15% to pay for what it said was a crisis in social care funding.
But soon after the postponement, leaked text messages about a supposed “memorandum of understanding” between the council and government prompted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse May of buying off Surrey with a special deal, which she denied.
The Labour leader reiterated the accusation this week after the release of an audio recording in which the council leader, David Hodge, told fellow Surrey Conservatives about a “gentleman’s agreement” with ministers.
The Department for Communities and Local Government is insisting that there is nothing dodgy about the fact that Surrey will receive an increasing proportional of new money for social care funding, announced in the Budget.
It’s allocated in the same way as the Better Care Fund, a spokesperson said, raising questions about the way that particular pot is shared out.
Meanwhile, Labour’s Andy Burnham is to write to the Cabinet Secretary, the UK’s most senior civil servant, demanding an investigation into the whole affair, including whether the ministerial code has been broken.
The code demands that public office-holders are required, by duty, to be honest in all their dealings and business.
It seems clear that the Tory government has been busy doing everything it can to find a way of justifying increased funding for Tory Surrey – at the expense of all other counties in the UK.
One wonders whether the Cabinet Secretary will try to dismiss the call for an investigation out-of-hand, giving raise to accusations against the civil service itself, or actually have the guts to start in inquiry that could cast the whole government into disrepute.
As far as This Writer is concerned, the Tories – and PM Theresa May in particular – look as guilty as the proverbial “puppy sitting next to a pile of poo”.
Philip Hammond’s budget has handed the largest boost in social care funding to Surrey council, according to calculations made after government ministers were accused of reaching a “sweetheart deal” with the Tory-led authority.
Analysis by Labour shows that out of the £2bn of new money for social care in England announced in Wednesday’s budget, Surrey will see the biggest increase in the share of funding by the 2019/20 financial year.
The analysis says that Surrey will get 1.66% of the money, rising from 0.75% in 2017/18, an increase of 0.91 percentage points in the three-year period – more than double the increase of the second council, Hertfordshire.
Theresa May has repeatedly denied Surrey will receive any form of funding not available to other local authorities, after the council last month called off a planned referendum on increasing council tax by 15% to pay for what it said was a crisis in social care funding.
But soon after the postponement, leaked text messages about a supposed “memorandum of understanding” between the council and government prompted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse May of buying off Surrey with a special deal, which she denied.
The Labour leader reiterated the accusation this week after the release of an audio recording in which the council leader, David Hodge, told fellow Surrey Conservatives about a “gentleman’s agreement” with ministers.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 12 March 2017
nhs
FAILINGS in the NHS and “excess deaths” in the tens of thousands could be attributed to austerity measures, a new research paper suggested.
The study suggested a staggering 30,000 excess deaths could be implicated in slashed health and social care budgets.
An “unprecedented” spike in mortality rates across England and Wales in 2015 sparked the need for investigation.
The researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council said that 2015 saw the largest rise in mortality rates in 50 years.
Empty hospital bedGETTY
A new research paper suggested 30,000 deaths were caused by NHS budget cuts
In their paper they wrote: "The long-term decline in mortality in England and Wales has reversed, with approximately 30,000 extra deaths compared to what would be expected if the average age-specific death rates in 2006 to 2014.
The teams looked at hospital waiting times, ambulance call out times, and cancelled operations to determine the deadly statistics.
The experts ruled out data errors, cold weather, and flu as potential causes for the lethal spike, concluding that the problems pointed towards failures in healthcare.
They stated: “The evidence points to a major failure of the health system, possibly exacerbated by failings in social care”.
"Our findings should be seen in the context of the worsening financial situation of the NHS"
"Since the 2010 election, the impact of cuts resulting from the imposition of austerity on the NHS has been profound.
The study suggested a staggering 30,000 excess deaths could be implicated in slashed health and social care budgets.
An “unprecedented” spike in mortality rates across England and Wales in 2015 sparked the need for investigation.
The researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council said that 2015 saw the largest rise in mortality rates in 50 years.
Empty hospital bedGETTY
A new research paper suggested 30,000 deaths were caused by NHS budget cuts
In their paper they wrote: "The long-term decline in mortality in England and Wales has reversed, with approximately 30,000 extra deaths compared to what would be expected if the average age-specific death rates in 2006 to 2014.
The teams looked at hospital waiting times, ambulance call out times, and cancelled operations to determine the deadly statistics.
The experts ruled out data errors, cold weather, and flu as potential causes for the lethal spike, concluding that the problems pointed towards failures in healthcare.
They stated: “The evidence points to a major failure of the health system, possibly exacerbated by failings in social care”.
"Our findings should be seen in the context of the worsening financial situation of the NHS"
"Since the 2010 election, the impact of cuts resulting from the imposition of austerity on the NHS has been profound.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 17 February 2017
more torys getting richer by supporting these companies
By John Pring Disability News Service 16th February 2017
Some of the country’s most controversial and discredited outsourcing companies are set to win contracts under the government’s new programme to find jobs for disabled people and other marginalised groups.
The 11 organisations that have been successful in the bidding process will be allowed to tender for the back-to-work contracts that will be offered under the Work and Health Programme.
They were all bidding for the right to tender for contracts across six regional areas in England and Wales, and a single national contract across the two countries.
The Work and Health Programme will support disabled people, those who are long-term unemployed, and other groups such as ex-carers, ex-offenders, homeless people and those with drug or alcohol dependencies.
Among those successful in the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Umbrella Agreement for Employment and Health Related Services were Maximus, People Plus (formerly known as A4E) and G4S.
G4S has been successful in every area apart from Wales, while People Plus has been successful in all seven lots.
Maximus, through its UK company Remploy, has been selected only for the Wales lot.
Maximus has a disturbing track record of discrimination, incompetence and fraud in the US, while Remploy, formerly owned by the government, revealed plans last year to halve the pay of service-users who take part in inspections of health and care facilities.
Last year, Maximus was accused in the House of Commons of falsifying the results of “fitness for work” assessments, and of “a disconcerting pattern of behaviour that indicates that the trade-off between cost-cutting and profit maximisation is being felt by very vulnerable people”.
People Plus, which has secured places in all seven lots, was formerly known as A4E, but in 2015 was taken over by another company and rebranded, after 10 former A4e employees were sentenced for a back-to-work fraud.
The previous year, DNS reported allegations that emerged during an employment tribunal – and were strongly refuted by the company – that A4E had introduced a new policy that forced advisers with no specialist training or experience to start working with “vulnerable” claimants with mental health conditions, learning difficulties and drug and alcohol problems on the Work Programme.
Last year, the disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Jane] Campbell, criticising the decision to hand the government contract to run the national discrimination helpline to G4S, told fellow peers that the company had “an appalling history of abuse and mismanagement”.
G4S’s track record includes claims of assault and racism at immigration detention centres, the failure to provide enough security staff for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, a coroner’s verdict of “unlawful killing” at the hands of G4S staff after the death of Angolan deportee Jimmy Mubenga in 2010, and serious allegations concerning G4S staff at secure training centres for children.
The other successful organisations are Ingeus, Reed, Shaw Trust, APM, Working Links, The Work Company, Pluss and Prospects.
Many of the country’s largest disability charities are likely to seek funding under the Work and Health Programme as sub-contractors for the organisations that win the main contracts, in a move which many activists believe could make it harder for them to speak out on welfare reform.
The Work and Health Programme will replace the mainstream Work Programme and the specialist Work Choice scheme for disabled people, but there have been concerns that it will see a significant cut in funding.
The government has promised £100 million a year by 2020-21 for disabled people found to have limited capability for work – paid for from cuts of more than £1 billion over the four years from April this year to new claimants of employment and support allowance (ESA) placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG) – as well as another £130 million a year for the overall programme.
But industry research has suggested that this will mean a sizeable overall drop from the £750 million spent on employment support in 2013-14.
DWP said yesterday (Wednesday) that it did not recognise this figure but was not able to say how much the overall budget on employment support had been and how much it would be under the new programme.
She said the budget for the new programme was not yet “in the public domain”.
Asked about the track records of Maximus, G4S and People Plus, the DWP spokeswoman said the umbrella agreement had been subject to public sector procurement regulations, and was conducted in an “open, transparent non-discriminatory manner”.
She said: “Each competition is designed to identify the winning bids over a range of pre-determined criteria.”
She said contracts would be awarded this autumn.
Meanwhile, the consultation on the government’s work, health and disability green paper – which outlines its plans for the Work and Health Programme – is due to end tomorrow (17 February).
The green paper revealed that the government was considering forcing all sick and disabled people on out-of-work disability benefits to take part in “mandatory” activity, including those who are terminally-ill or have the very highest support needs and have been placed in the ESA support group.
It also repeatedly emphasised that the government wanted to “reinforce work as a health outcome”, increasing the number of job advisers in healthcare settings and making “the benefits of work an ingrained part of the training and professional approach of the health and social care workforce”.
Some of the country’s most controversial and discredited outsourcing companies are set to win contracts under the government’s new programme to find jobs for disabled people and other marginalised groups.
The 11 organisations that have been successful in the bidding process will be allowed to tender for the back-to-work contracts that will be offered under the Work and Health Programme.
They were all bidding for the right to tender for contracts across six regional areas in England and Wales, and a single national contract across the two countries.
The Work and Health Programme will support disabled people, those who are long-term unemployed, and other groups such as ex-carers, ex-offenders, homeless people and those with drug or alcohol dependencies.
Among those successful in the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Umbrella Agreement for Employment and Health Related Services were Maximus, People Plus (formerly known as A4E) and G4S.
G4S has been successful in every area apart from Wales, while People Plus has been successful in all seven lots.
Maximus, through its UK company Remploy, has been selected only for the Wales lot.
Maximus has a disturbing track record of discrimination, incompetence and fraud in the US, while Remploy, formerly owned by the government, revealed plans last year to halve the pay of service-users who take part in inspections of health and care facilities.
Last year, Maximus was accused in the House of Commons of falsifying the results of “fitness for work” assessments, and of “a disconcerting pattern of behaviour that indicates that the trade-off between cost-cutting and profit maximisation is being felt by very vulnerable people”.
People Plus, which has secured places in all seven lots, was formerly known as A4E, but in 2015 was taken over by another company and rebranded, after 10 former A4e employees were sentenced for a back-to-work fraud.
The previous year, DNS reported allegations that emerged during an employment tribunal – and were strongly refuted by the company – that A4E had introduced a new policy that forced advisers with no specialist training or experience to start working with “vulnerable” claimants with mental health conditions, learning difficulties and drug and alcohol problems on the Work Programme.
Last year, the disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Jane] Campbell, criticising the decision to hand the government contract to run the national discrimination helpline to G4S, told fellow peers that the company had “an appalling history of abuse and mismanagement”.
G4S’s track record includes claims of assault and racism at immigration detention centres, the failure to provide enough security staff for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, a coroner’s verdict of “unlawful killing” at the hands of G4S staff after the death of Angolan deportee Jimmy Mubenga in 2010, and serious allegations concerning G4S staff at secure training centres for children.
The other successful organisations are Ingeus, Reed, Shaw Trust, APM, Working Links, The Work Company, Pluss and Prospects.
Many of the country’s largest disability charities are likely to seek funding under the Work and Health Programme as sub-contractors for the organisations that win the main contracts, in a move which many activists believe could make it harder for them to speak out on welfare reform.
The Work and Health Programme will replace the mainstream Work Programme and the specialist Work Choice scheme for disabled people, but there have been concerns that it will see a significant cut in funding.
The government has promised £100 million a year by 2020-21 for disabled people found to have limited capability for work – paid for from cuts of more than £1 billion over the four years from April this year to new claimants of employment and support allowance (ESA) placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG) – as well as another £130 million a year for the overall programme.
But industry research has suggested that this will mean a sizeable overall drop from the £750 million spent on employment support in 2013-14.
DWP said yesterday (Wednesday) that it did not recognise this figure but was not able to say how much the overall budget on employment support had been and how much it would be under the new programme.
She said the budget for the new programme was not yet “in the public domain”.
Asked about the track records of Maximus, G4S and People Plus, the DWP spokeswoman said the umbrella agreement had been subject to public sector procurement regulations, and was conducted in an “open, transparent non-discriminatory manner”.
She said: “Each competition is designed to identify the winning bids over a range of pre-determined criteria.”
She said contracts would be awarded this autumn.
Meanwhile, the consultation on the government’s work, health and disability green paper – which outlines its plans for the Work and Health Programme – is due to end tomorrow (17 February).
The green paper revealed that the government was considering forcing all sick and disabled people on out-of-work disability benefits to take part in “mandatory” activity, including those who are terminally-ill or have the very highest support needs and have been placed in the ESA support group.
It also repeatedly emphasised that the government wanted to “reinforce work as a health outcome”, increasing the number of job advisers in healthcare settings and making “the benefits of work an ingrained part of the training and professional approach of the health and social care workforce”.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 16 February 2017
nhs starved of monies
INTEGRATION of health and social care services by the government is failing to save money or stem the rise in hospital admission numbers, the National Audit Office (NAO) said yesterday.
The Department of Health and NHS England had been “overoptimistic” about what the Better Care Fund could actually achieve, the public-spending watchdog reported.
The fund was set up with £5.3 billion of NHS and local authority cash in 2015 with the aim of saving £511 million in the first year. This did not happen and hospital patient numbers increased said NAO.
The NHS is in the crisis due to record numbers of delayed discharges — patients fit to go home can’t leave because cash-strapped council care services are unable to look after them.
The NAO said there was “no compelling evidence” to show that integrating services “leads to sustainable financial savings or reduced hospital activity.”
And the report said that almost £2bn set aside to help integrate services had actually been used to plug deficits at NHS trusts.
NAO head Amyas Morse said: “So far, benefits have fallen far short of plans, despite much effort.”
Labour and Co-operative MP Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said MPs had warned of flaws in the plan two years ago.
“The committee warned that the focus on reducing emergency admissions to hospital without enough investment in community-based services would increase pressure on adult social care services.”
She added that full integration by 2020 “is nothing but a pipe dream” unless the government and NHS England fully involve local services.
The Department of Health and NHS England had been “overoptimistic” about what the Better Care Fund could actually achieve, the public-spending watchdog reported.
The fund was set up with £5.3 billion of NHS and local authority cash in 2015 with the aim of saving £511 million in the first year. This did not happen and hospital patient numbers increased said NAO.
The NHS is in the crisis due to record numbers of delayed discharges — patients fit to go home can’t leave because cash-strapped council care services are unable to look after them.
The NAO said there was “no compelling evidence” to show that integrating services “leads to sustainable financial savings or reduced hospital activity.”
And the report said that almost £2bn set aside to help integrate services had actually been used to plug deficits at NHS trusts.
NAO head Amyas Morse said: “So far, benefits have fallen far short of plans, despite much effort.”
Labour and Co-operative MP Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Commons public accounts committee, said MPs had warned of flaws in the plan two years ago.
“The committee warned that the focus on reducing emergency admissions to hospital without enough investment in community-based services would increase pressure on adult social care services.”
She added that full integration by 2020 “is nothing but a pipe dream” unless the government and NHS England fully involve local services.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 08 February 2017
There have been some 79 posts and replies on this page. To view older ones search here.
This only searches posts, not replies.
chemists cuts opening hours national pharmacy association high courtGETTY
Industry experts have warned that high street chemists will se their opening hours cut It comes as the changes are set to be challenged in the High Court. Last week the National Pharmacy Association presented its case against the Government’s £321million pharmacy funding cut to the court, ahead of a hearing later this month.
The basis of the legal challenge is that the Government failed to consider properly the impact its cuts will have in deprived areas and on the elderly, the disabled and people from black and minority ethnic communities.
The hearing comes as a survey of high street chemists hit by the cuts found that 65 per cent will be forced to reduce opening hours or services to some degree by the summer.
The research carried out by the NPA found that nearly half of those surveyed have begun to reduce staffing levels while nearly a third are in the process of restricting currently “free” services such as home deliveries of medicines.