Saturday 28th Feb & Sunday 1st March 2015

[RogerOThornhill]

As I pointed out the other day, it's going to get really messy when they start to want education too - there's 100 different funding agreements with different academy trusts...many of which will have schools outside of Manchester too.

[ErnstRemarx]

The main thrust has always been, how can we get increased money and powers so that Whitehall doesn't decide it all for us (as they currently do)? .

No. Frankly I find that suggestion insulting. Whitehall decides nothing other than the overall budget and that won't change. The CCGs and NHS England area teams already make commissioning decisions. There was already local control, and with co-commissioning there would be more. Politicians should keep their grubby mitts off the NHS or who knows where we'll end up.

No reason to do this other than power, and it's not right.

How else would DevoManc work, unless the powers for decision making and the monies were devolved to a layer of government at regional level? The NHS question is a separate one, insofar as - and you've said it - there's a structure there for its governance. As it is, politicians end up making decisions about the NHS as they decide what the priorities are and where the money (and reforms) go. That's how it now is.

I wish I'd never commented on the DevoManc stuff - or perhaps at least have spelt out from the onset that that's what I knew more about. If the crux of the matter is the distaste for what looks like Leese going it alone, then I've already set out my thoughts above.

[Tubby Isaacs]

As I pointed out the other day, it's going to get really messy when they start to want education too - there's 100 different funding agreements with different academy trusts...many of which will have schools outside of Manchester too.

Consolidating the "LEA"s would simplify it a bit, but that's not straightforward. Trafford has grammar schools, for instance.

Ought to have been done straight off, instead of all the academizing.

[Tubby Isaacs]

How else would DevoManc work, unless the powers for decision making and the monies were devolved to a layer of government at regional level? The NHS question is a separate one, insofar as - and you've said it - there's a structure there for its governance. As it is, politicians end up making decisions about the NHS as they decide what the priorities are and where the money (and reforms) go. That's how it now is.

I'm not sure, is it like that now?

I've seen Norman Lamb get a lot of stick for "parity of mental health" stuff, because (people say) he can't do anything about it.

Who can?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well done Gisela! This is what they need in Scotland.

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-mp ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories

[ErnstRemarx]

How else would DevoManc work, unless the powers for decision making and the monies were devolved to a layer of government at regional level? The NHS question is a separate one, insofar as - and you've said it - there's a structure there for its governance. As it is, politicians end up making decisions about the NHS as they decide what the priorities are and where the money (and reforms) go. That's how it now is.

I'm not sure, is it like that now?

I've seen Norman Lamb get a lot of stick for "parity of mental health" stuff, because (people say) he can't do anything about it.

Who can?

Well, the politicians decide the structures and powers (with authoritative advice, one hopes) and then the Treasury divvies up the cash based upon political considerations as far as I understand it. Lamb'll get nowhere because the Tories aren't fussed about mental health (unless it's one of their own, then they're 'frail'). Put this at a regional level and different priorities will emerge. It's potentially a hidden 'gotcha' of regionalised government: national institutions would have to be rethought in a regional as opposed to national structure. I'm not saying it's impossible to sort out, but it will need thought. Do you, for example, retain the NHS as a national service in all senses so that regional governance doesn't affect it in any way? How, then, do you integrate social care - which might well be seen as a function of regional governance and councils? Do you give it straight to councils with the appropriate funding, and cut out the regional level? Do you deem it a function of the NHS and therefore perhaps take it away from regions and councils and dump it on CCGs (or their equivalents)?

[ErnstRemarx]

Well done Gisela! This is what they need in Scotland.

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-mp ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour MP says party shouldn’t rule out a ‘grand coalition’ with the Tories

What a very dumb thing for her to say. If she doesn't get a slapping for that I'll be extremely surprised.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well, the politicians decide the structures and powers (with authoritative advice, one hopes) and then the Treasury divvies up the cash based upon political considerations as far as I understand it. Lamb'll get nowhere because the Tories aren't fussed about mental health (unless it's one of their own, then they're 'frail'). Put this at a regional level and different priorities will emerge. It's potentially a hidden 'gotcha' of regionalised government: national institutions would have to be rethought in a regional as opposed to national structure. I'm not saying it's impossible to sort out, but it will need thought. Do you, for example, retain the NHS as a national service in all senses so that regional governance doesn't affect it in any way? How, then, do you integrate social care - which might well be seen as a function of regional governance and councils? Do you give it straight to councils with the appropriate funding, and cut out the regional level? Do you deem it a function of the NHS and therefore perhaps take it away from regions and councils and dump it on CCGs (or their equivalents)?

Some Lib Dem ministers have attacked their Tory bosses on specific policies (most notably, to be fair to him, David Laws) but I haven't got any sense of Lamb being blocked by Hunt. I don't think Hunt has the power. I think it's under quangos. That's what Jane Ellison said.

If that's true, then I can't see how anything can be devolved.

I would think that, at the most basic level, the social care people could just start working for the health service.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And Osborne's surely not suggesting Greater Manchester become grand commissioners?

Are they going to be like the Police Commissioners? I still don't understand what they do.

[RogerOThornhill]

And Osborne's surely not suggesting Greater Manchester become grand commissioners?

Are they going to be like the Police Commissioners? I still don't understand what they do.

I did notice in that Jenkins article that the PCC for Manchester would go and the new Mayor would take over - as in London.

Nothing like consistent policy making...and this etc.

[daydreamer]

Re. Manchester NHS.

I don't give a flying fart who knew what when or who did what to whom how why and for how much. I do not care.

What I care about is the splitting up of a NATIONAL health service. Regional controls or whatever it is sold as by people who want it gone.

In Wales, we have devolved responsibility for the NHS and social care. We are better at combining both than England.
If we have problems in the NHS and in social care, it is due to under-funding and that is due to Barnett.

Osborne is, effectively, promoting a Barnett-esque financial settlement which Manchester can use to provide health and social care.
Total control of the budget is the carrot - insufficient and /or dwindling funding will be the stick.
What gets spent where will depend on a small group of people - it's not on.

This is creating regional provision which can also affect pay, conditions, training, and career paths for health care staff.
Osborne has made no secret of the fact that he wants regional pay for public servants. He has said on more than one occasion that public sector pay should be lower and reflect prices/whatever areas where the cost of living is low. This is one way to get it.

This is nasty, typical, divide-and-rule game-playing which could have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
Setting Labour against Labour, and laughing all the way.

Robert knows the NHS well, so do I - and we both agree that this idea is wrong.
Maybe I have been reading Ernst's post wrong, in which case I apologise - but if you agree with this, Ernst, then I am disappointed in you.

I agree totally with the main issues you highlight Ephe, but as a Manchester resident I DO care who stitched us up and why.
AND what they stand to gain from it.
Who will become the unelected, unwanted, heavens-knows-how-much-salaried, imposed Mayor for instance?

I agree, this stinks to high heaven.

[daydreamer]

The shit for brains knob head.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And Osborne's surely not suggesting Greater Manchester become grand commissioners?

Are they going to be like the Police Commissioners? I still don't understand what they do.

I did notice in that Jenkins article that the PCC for Manchester would go and the new Mayor would take over - as in London.

Nothing like consistent policy making...and this etc.

Greater London would surely be the first place you'd integrate health with local democracy, because there's an existing elected structure.

[daydreamer]

Night all,

[Tubby Isaacs]

And Osborne's surely not suggesting Greater Manchester become grand commissioners?

Are they going to be like the Police Commissioners? I still don't understand what they do.

Commissioners of health services assess the evidence for the needs of the population, develop requirements for health services to meet those needs, and work with providers to implement them.

It's necessary to distinguish between the actual commissioners, who do the work, and the boards who sign off the decisions. The latter should be accountable to elected politicians, and scrutinised by them, but politicians should not have any hand whatsoever in commissioning decisions. End of story. If Labour propose or go along with that, that's where I and Labour part company.

As I understand it, PCCs are quite different. I don't understand what they do, either. Another worrying politicisation of an area of public life that should be accountable but not run by politicians.

So who scrutinizes the board at the moment?

[HindleA]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... -christian" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Churches call government welfare sanctions 'inhumane and un-Christian'

Report by religious leaders says Department of Work and Pensions targets vulnerable families in order to make cuts under guise of regulation


A report by the churches, to be published on Monday, says: “We have concluded it is very hard to justify a system which impacts most harshly on the people who most need help and support … It is incumbent on the Christian community to speak out against any system which treats people so unjustly.”

[HindleA]

Maximus National Day of Action today

https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/219 ... -of-action" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Martin Rowson
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... on-cartoon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;