Monday 2nd March 2015

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 7:35 am

Good morning all

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 8:18 am

Good Morning danesclose and a snowy one here in the Pennines!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 8:21 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cameron wants to build lots of new homes if he wins

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 8:22 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/31675060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New drug driving laws are a stunt.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 8:43 am

Morning all.

tom_watson ‏@tom_watson 16m16 minutes ago
When this happened in Rotherham, there were resignations, statements in the House and Pickles took over the council: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ase-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

He's right. And the MPs for the Rotherham area have faced insults and abuse over it .... wonder why the same hasn't happened for the Oxfordshire MPs? No I don't.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 9:21 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.

tom_watson ‏@tom_watson 16m16 minutes ago
When this happened in Rotherham, there were resignations, statements in the House and Pickles took over the council: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ase-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
He's right. And the MPs for the Rotherham area have faced insults and abuse over it .... wonder why the same hasn't happened for the Oxfordshire MPs? No I don't.

The Guardian article has no reference to the local council at all, let alone any information about which party has overall control. Social services failure to safeguard is mentioned in passing, but the whole focus is on the police, which is what I couldn't understand about the Rotherham situation - not that councillors were expected to take responsibility for social services failures, but that the failures of the police were so underplayed. The fact that the media have focused on a completely different element in what is a very similar story is quite blatant, really and they'll get away with it, I suspect, because the focus on the police is actually justified and what a pity the police in Rotherham weren't put under a similar spotlight, is all I can say.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 9:29 am

Roy Lilley's column today has a link to the document behind devolving health in Manchester

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/mou.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... ae52733d3a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He says:

Go to page 10 (Para9);

"...the (Council) is responsible for designing and creating the provider structure and form, to support its commissioning intentions."

What? Yup and if you think that is a 'read it again' moment, you should see the rest of it...

"... the (Council) to play a clearly defined leadership role in the oversight of its provider community working in close partnership with Monitor, TDA and CQC."

So there you have it Mancs - the council will be responsible for designing and creating the provider structure and form of your MHS services as well as playing a leadership role.

What could possibly go wrong - after all, it's not like we have ever seen situations where councils have failed in their duties before is it........

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 9:34 am

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.

tom_watson ‏@tom_watson 16m16 minutes ago
When this happened in Rotherham, there were resignations, statements in the House and Pickles took over the council: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... ase-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
He's right. And the MPs for the Rotherham area have faced insults and abuse over it .... wonder why the same hasn't happened for the Oxfordshire MPs? No I don't.
The Guardian article has no reference to the local council at all, let alone any information about which party has overall control. Social services failure to safeguard is mentioned in passing, but the whole focus is on the police, which is what I couldn't understand about the Rotherham situation - not that councillors were expected to take responsibility for social services failures, but that the failures of the police were so underplayed. The fact that the media have focused on a completely different element in what is a very similar story is quite blatant, really and they'll get away with it, I suspect, because the focus on the police is actually justified and what a pity the police in Rotherham weren't put under a similar spotlight, is all I can say.

I'd need to read it again but IIRC the Jay Report did focus on the police failings too but it was spun as being solely the fault of the council and its agencies. But if (i) the police aren't taking it seriously and not charging and (ii) some of the girls didn't want to make a complaint for whatever reason, it's difficult to see what the council agencies can do.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 9:45 am

Morning.

Cumultative Impact Report into Welfare Reform Scotland.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsa ... 87236.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parli ... 87136.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“The figures demonstrate that the welfare reforms impact very unevenly. The very big impact on families with children, in particular, has previously been under the radar because it is the cumulative result of several individual reforms. Coalition ministers have argued that “we’re all in it together”. The impacts of welfare reform, documented in our report, show this is far from being the case.”

danesclose · Post by **danesclose** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 9:45 am

pk1 wrote:Roy Lilley's column today has a link to the document behind devolving health in Manchester

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/mou.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... ae52733d3a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He says:

Go to page 10 (Para9);

"...the (Council) is responsible for designing and creating the provider structure and form, to support its commissioning intentions."

What? Yup and if you think that is a 'read it again' moment, you should see the rest of it...

"... the (Council) to play a clearly defined leadership role in the oversight of its provider community working in close partnership with Monitor, TDA and CQC."
So there you have it Mancs - the council will be responsible for designing and creating the provider structure and form of your MHS services as well as playing a leadership role.

What could possibly go wrong - after all, it's not like we have ever seen situations where councils have failed in their duties before is it........

Which Council? There's about 10 of them

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:07 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:Morning all.
He's right. And the MPs for the Rotherham area have faced insults and abuse over it .... wonder why the same hasn't happened for the Oxfordshire MPs? No I don't.
The Guardian article has no reference to the local council at all, let alone any information about which party has overall control. Social services failure to safeguard is mentioned in passing, but the whole focus is on the police, which is what I couldn't understand about the Rotherham situation - not that councillors were expected to take responsibility for social services failures, but that the failures of the police were so underplayed. The fact that the media have focused on a completely different element in what is a very similar story is quite blatant, really and they'll get away with it, I suspect, because the focus on the police is actually justified and what a pity the police in Rotherham weren't put under a similar spotlight, is all I can say.
I'd need to read it again but IIRC the Jay Report did focus on the police failings too but it was spun as being solely the fault of the council and its agencies. But if (i) the police aren't taking it seriously and not charging and (ii) some of the girls didn't want to make a complaint for whatever reason, it's difficult to see what the council agencies can do.

By underplayed I meant by the media, not those conducting the inquiry. The failings of social services were, quite rightly, covered very fully. The failings of the police, however, I found really shocking and the media coverage didn't seem to come anywhere close to echoing my shock. Sex with someone under the age of 16 is illegal, even if the young person appears to consent. I find it difficult to understand how even one instance of a minor reporting sex abuse would be dismissed/ignored by the police:

A serious case review by the Oxfordshire safeguarding children’s board, to be published on Tuesday, will condemn Thames Valley police for not believing the young girls, for treating them as if they had chosen to adopt the lifestyle, and for failing to act on repeated calls for help.

It doesn't matter if a 15 year old "adopts the lifestyle", the person having sex with them is breaking the law regardless and the police are supposed to uphold the law. This underlying attitude in Rotherham raised real questions about police attitudes to crimes against women in general which the media failed to give full consideration to, even though at the time the problems in Oxfordshire were already being cited as evidence it was a general problem, not one specific to Rotherham. By overlooking such a serious issue to focus on a biased attack on the Labour party, the media revealed its agenda is not one of national public interest but extremely partisan.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:16 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
pk1 wrote:Roy Lilley's column today has a link to the document behind devolving health in Manchester

http://www.agma.gov.uk/cms_media/files/mou.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... ae52733d3a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He says:

Go to page 10 (Para9);

"...the (Council) is responsible for designing and creating the provider structure and form, to support its commissioning intentions."

What? Yup and if you think that is a 'read it again' moment, you should see the rest of it...

"... the (Council) to play a clearly defined leadership role in the oversight of its provider community working in close partnership with Monitor, TDA and CQC."
So there you have it Mancs - the council will be responsible for designing and creating the provider structure and form of your MHS services as well as playing a leadership role.

What could possibly go wrong - after all, it's not like we have ever seen situations where councils have failed in their duties before is it........
And Labour councillors agreed to this?

Scum. Parasitic, power-hungry, idiotic, traitorous scum. They've destroyed the NHS at a stroke.

Am now reconsidering my vote at the GE.

Why? It won't happen (in the above form at any rate) if Labour forms the government in May. Burnham will see to that.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:18 am

Storm off and they've won.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:18 am

RobertSnozers wrote:@Tubby

In answer to your question from last night, CCG boards are 'assured' by NHS England 'sub regions' (SHAs in all but name) to make sure they are fit for purpose , and commissioning decisions are scrutinised by LA overview and scrutiny committees. This scrutiny should be to make sure the decisions are made in the correct way, not get involved in the decisions themselves. I've seen OSCs get hi-jacked for partisan political purposes but it's rare, mercifully. It was these occasions that persuaded me that politicians must not be involved in decisions about the shape and nature of health services, because they make decisions for narrow political reasons. If local politicians were left in charge, even the better ones, the NHS would have collapsed by now because we'd have ended up with no hospital, ward or bed ever closing and there wouldn't be money for anything else.

LAs already have a degree of involvement in health through OSCs and Health and Wellbeing Boards, and that is plenty.

This is a very good post, Robert - thank you.

I don't know what your role is, but I actually think highly of some commissioners; when I was working for the DAAT in Glos, we had a brilliant guy doing our commissioning. He left the clinical priorities to the people responsible for them, insisted on research to justify our wishes or feedback from us if what we were asking for was something new; he expected us to be realistic for future planning, and although we couldn't always have what we wanted he managed to procure the best services within a limited budget and was a very tough negotiator with service providers.

The NHS - and all other areas of public service, IMHO - needs good, experienced, apolitical commissioning to get the best value for taxpayers and the best possible care for service users. There's an optimum to be achieved, and you need skilled people to get it.
People moan about "management" in the NHS, but unless there is sound financial management and good commissioning, a lot of money gets wasted and we need good people to do this work. It saves in the long run, and delivers better services. A good commissioner has the same sort of clinical detachment a good doctor has - both can stand back a bit and make a decision on how best to deal with a situation for all concerned.

The last thing any NHS service needs is political interference. There will always be an agenda if a politician (of any hue) is in the forefront of decision-making, especially on clinical issues. It's a bad idea to put this power in politicians' hands.
If you are a patient in an area where the politico in charge wants to get popularity with the elderly, say, it would be likely that the services would reflect that; what care or treatment a person gets should not depend on the colour of a politicians' tie, it should be based on clinical need.

Overall provision must reflect the demographic, not political expediency. It is very foolish, for example, to stop commissioning things like harm reduction services in areas where there is a high volume of injecting drug users; that has happened in some places, and the rate of HIV and HBV infection has increased in some areas where it was falling. It would take a very determined politician to spend money on such services, as they are not popular despite the fact that they contribute considerably to public health.

I agree with everything you have said on this.

Imagine the scenario if UKIP got control of a health budget and decided not to fund care for immigrants, say. It's scary - and this Manchester business is just the thin end of the wedge - a wedge that is setting Labour against Labour, Manchester against other cities, patients in one area against patients in another.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:22 am

HindleA wrote:Storm off and they've won.

This, plus that nothing of any consequence is actually going to happen before the GE.

Meanwhile, I see that the CyberNat nation has had a collective orgasm over Gisela Stuart's comments. Give me f***ing strength

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:23 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31683974

Cameron wants to build lots of new homes if he wins

Sure he does.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:31 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
HindleA wrote:Storm off and they've won.
Labour agrees to this and they've already won.

Quit future-tripping.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:37 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
HindleA wrote:Storm off and they've won.
Labour agrees to this and they've already won.

What possible reason would Labour agree to this?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:39 am

I think Richard Leese agreeing to this is a classic example of a successful council leader getting carried away and letting their past achievements go to their heads.

A great shame, though it has happened before more than once.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 10:46 am

I'm gutted that Ed is in Hove today & I don't know where.

3 miles from my home & I haven't been able to see him or hear him speak.

Doesn't central office think we party members may want to know this kind of stuff in advance so that we can show up in support or are we only good enough for responding to the begging emails ?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:01 am

citizenJA wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
HindleA wrote:Storm off and they've won.
Labour agrees to this and they've already won.
Quit future-tripping.

"Quit future-tripping"?

Why?

We do a lot of "future-tripping" here. If the Tories get in, X; if Labour get in, Y. All the time. Speculate, wonder, hope....future-trip.

Robert (whose knowledge of NHS management is the best on this board) makes a very good point.
Until we know what Labour will do about this - and it remains open to conjecture - it could happen.

If Labour do not commit to prevent this should they gain office, I'll be tearing up my card.

I have been on the cusp of doing this for some time - I have been frequently irritated and sometimes incensed by Reeves and Green, neither of whom are listening to what people are saying, neither of whom understand the difference between illness and disability, and both of whom continue to drone on about disabled people going back to work with some tinkering with the WCA.

In the greater scheme of things, I can overlook that if I must, on the grounds that at least Labour are a bit better than the Tories on other issues, and I have (no, had) high hopes of Miliband.
But if Labour do not commit, in full, right now, to stopping this nonsense if they get into office then they have lost my vote.

Party of the NHS and the welfare state? Well, fucking PROVE it.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:08 am

Good morfternon.

Has anyone here counted the number of government (ie tax-payer-funded)TV adverts that there are swilling around at the moment? There seems to be an awful lot of them, although I've lost count.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:11 am

Playing Right into their hands
As intended.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:12 am

RobertSnozers wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Labour agrees to this and they've already won.
What possible reason would Labour agree to this?
Well, the Labour council already appears to have done so. And what if the central party decides they don't want to take major powers off one of their strongholds for fear of alienating supporters there? They haven't exactly rushed to confim their opposition to it.

Here's Labourlist cooing over it http://labourlist.org/2015/02/why-labou ... anchester/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although Burnham has said he doesn't like it, he hasn't stated explicitly that he'd cancel it http://labourlist.org/2015/02/devolving ... s-burnham/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your first link was written by a guy called Ben Nunn. It seems he works for a think tank so the article is his opinion based on his employment.

http://www.mhpc.com/health/author/ben-nunn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for AB, ok he hasn't stated explicitly he would cancel it but it's fair to say we all think we know what his feelings are for the NHS & combining social care. He was the first to speak of it in recent times.

He has to be elected, Labour have to win & knowing how the media can scupper any chances of a fair hearing, it's likely he is saying little on the subject, not because he likes the plans but because many Manc surrounding residents may think they like them without knowing anything about the realities.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:13 am

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternon.

Has anyone here counted the number of government (ie tax-payer-funded)TV adverts that there are swilling around at the moment? There seems to be an awful lot of them, although I've lost count.

20% rise in no of govt adverts already this year according to a tweet I saw from Tim Montgomerie - and he said it was 'naughty' if I remember it right.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:14 am

HindleA wrote:Playing Right into their hands
As intended.

This ^^

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:17 am

@rebeccariots2

Thanks!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:18 am

John Mann MP ‏@JohnMannMP 6m6 minutes ago
First Virgin train on East Coast franchise is the first train I have had in a year to arrive at Retford late.

John Mann MP ‏@JohnMannMP 3m3 minutes ago
One might have expected Virgin trains to clean the train before their inaugural Easy Coast service. Sadly not. Filthy.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:20 am

ephemerid wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: Labour agrees to this and they've already won.
Quit future-tripping.

"Quit future-tripping"?

Why?

We do a lot of "future-tripping" here. If the Tories get in, X; if Labour get in, Y. All the time. Speculate, wonder, hope....future-trip.

Robert (whose knowledge of NHS management is the best on this board) makes a very good point.
Until we know what Labour will do about this - and it remains open to conjecture - it could happen.

If Labour do not commit to prevent this should they gain office, I'll be tearing up my card.

I have been on the cusp of doing this for some time - I have been frequently irritated and sometimes incensed by Reeves and Green, neither of whom are listening to what people are saying, neither of whom understand the difference between illness and disability, and both of whom continue to drone on about disabled people going back to work with some tinkering with the WCA.

In the greater scheme of things, I can overlook that if I must, on the grounds that at least Labour are a bit better than the Tories on other issues, and I have (no, had) high hopes of Miliband.
But if Labour do not commit, in full, right now, to stopping this nonsense if they get into office then they have lost my vote.

Party of the NHS and the welfare state? Well, fucking PROVE it.

Ed Miliband really needs to say something on this, doesn't he? Cameron has left it hanging in the air that he knew nothing about this. If true, Miliband should confirm that he - and the rest of the UK public - have been left out of the loop and challenge the legitimacy of making major changes to local council responsibilities and the structure of the NHS in secret behind closed doors without a white paper, without a debate and without a vote in parliament. If it means clashing with Richard Leese and negative consequences for Labour in Manchester, so be it. Ed Miliband as leader of the opposition has a responsibility to hold the government to account on our behalf and this is a constitutional issue too important to ignore because it will cause problems for Labour's election campaign.

I believe what Osborne and Leese have done between them is wrong. I can't vote against Leese, as I don't live in Manchester, but I can vote against Osborne and I will be doing so, even if Miliband wimps out on this, because at the end of the day, Labour winning an overall majority is actually the only possibility for this not happening. Any other scenario makes it unlikely what has been set in motion will be stopped. It will, however, lower Ed Miliband in my opinion, if he doesn't take a stand on this. The NHS and national co-operation can't be sacrificed for one city's selfish power grab, even if that city returns several much needed Labour MPs.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:24 am

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
Latest Populus sees LAB still in lead
Con 32 (+1) Lab 34 (+1) LD 8 (-1) UKIP 14 (-2) GRN 5 (-1)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:26 am

HindleA wrote:Playing Right into their hands
As intended.

It is very obvious - as I have said more than several times here in this very boutique - that this is typical Osborne divide-and-rule flummery and I am not fooled by it.

However - it is NOT the rest of us who are playing into "their hands". It is elected Labour politicians in Manchester who are doing that.
They have been offered power and have chosen to grab it. It's the Libbing Dead all over again.

It's reprehensible behaviour by Osborne, which we expect; it's even more reprehensible from the LA politicians, as they cannot be so thick that they do not understand that what happened in Wales is what will happen in Manchester. Cuts, more cuts, and left to sink or swim.

Just for once, I want to see a bit of courage. It really isn't much to ask.

I think I'll stay away from here for a bit. I don't take kindly to being patronised.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:33 am

John Mann MP ‏@JohnMannMP 3m3 minutes ago
Virgin trains on East Coast running so late that travellers at Grantham end up on wrong train. Total chaos. 'Start of an amazing journey'

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:41 am

Here we go again.......

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:44 am

RobertSnozers wrote:Me too Ephe.

Ho hum.

I intend to spend my time today contributing what little I can to the anti-Maximarse/WCA protests.

I can't do anything about megalomaniac Mancunians, supine shadow ministers, or much else.

I know a lot about the NHS and DWP. Labour appear to be determined to let me down on both.

I really hope I am proved wrong.

Meanwhile, I'm off for a bit.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:50 am

To be clear,people are taking offence for no reason.Take no significance in order of posts.I was not replying to anybody,merely stating an observation,that they themselves acknowledge.I never ever ever intentionally patronise or insult peoples' intelligence.We are fallling out,that is what they want.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 11:53 am

Sorry folks - I haven't got the stamina or emotional whatever to be properly engaging with arguments and discussions here at the moment - (and I never have the intellect) - but this is just to say I respect when people feel things like the Manc stuff acutely - but I hope people who feel they need a break don't stay away too long and come back soon.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:09 pm

No one has more interest in this area considering our daily lives are consumed by health issues/NHS interactions,like many.The patronisation is those who direct their ire at mere observational points,which cannot be denied and vent their frustrations at the indisputable innocent.Very disappointed.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:11 pm

I would suggest that Labour will not be immediately calling for a halt to Devo NHS Manc. But I am fairly certain that it won't happen under a Labour government.

Picking a huge fight with local politicians this side of a GE just isn't going to work. I would expect a statement like

"This will be reviewed carefully with a view to ensuring the NHS remains a National Health Service and to protect the people of Manchester from the risks of a fragmented and underfunded service."

Followed by an attack in detail on the worst aspects of the policy.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:22 pm

Church Action on Poverty report on sanctions

http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:23 pm

HindleA wrote:No one has more interest in this area considering our daily lives are consumed by health issues/NHS interactions,like many.The patronisation is those who direct their ire at mere observational points,which cannot be denied and vent their frustrations at the indisputable innocent.Very disappointed.

"Very disappointed".

Indeed.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:37 pm

In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:47 pm

Latest Populus poll (27 Feb - 01 Mar):
LAB - 34% (+1)
CON - 32% (+1)
UKIP - 15% (-1)
LDEM - 8% (-1)
GRN - 5% (-1)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:49 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:I would suggest that Labour will not be immediately calling for a halt to Devo NHS Manc. But I am fairly certain that it won't happen under a Labour government.

Picking a huge fight with local politicians this side of a GE just isn't going to work. I would expect a statement like

"This will be reviewed carefully with a view to ensuring the NHS remains a National Health Service and to protect the people of Manchester from the risks of a fragmented and underfunded service."

Followed by an attack in detail on the worst aspects of the policy.

The problem is such a statement hasn't been forthcoming. We know how Andy Burnham feels, but that's not enough, we need to know what Labour are going to do.

I also understand what you're saying about picking a fight with local politicians being detrimental to Labour's election campaign, I've said as much myself, but I find the way the NHS devolution has been handled, in secret negotiations with non-elected officials, with no consultation or vote of any kind completely reprehensible if not unconstitutional and I remain shocked and angry that any Labour councillor, especially such a high profile one, would have anything to do with such underhand, undemocratic shenanigans. I appreciate Ed Miliband has been left in a very difficult position, but when our position is difficult we must fall back on our principles and would rather hope that Ed's principles would lead him to believe that this is not an appropriate way to determine the future of the NHS and anyone who thinks it is has no place in the Labour party.

In reality it looks as though Ed isn't going to say anything, hoping it will blow over until after the election, but I think that would be a big mistake. If Labour don't win a majority, this looks like a done deal and Labour's chance to oppose the break-up of the NHS which will almost certainly follow will already be behind them as the Tories will quite rightly be able to say if Labour didn't like it why didn't they oppose it at the time it was announced.

Game and set to Osborne. Ed's going to have to dig deep if he's going to win the match, I just hope he remembers it's only worth winning if you can do so with your principles intact.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:55 pm

I don't think a Labour position on Devo Manc NHS will emerge quickly because it is damn complex. It will emerge before the campaign because it will be a huge issue in Manchester.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 12:55 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
John Mann MP ‏@JohnMannMP 3m3 minutes ago
Virgin trains on East Coast running so late that travellers at Grantham end up on wrong train. Total chaos. 'Start of an amazing journey'

I know this would have happened even if the franchise hadn't changed but I find it amusing anyway (not that the passengers would agree):

Britain’s newest rail franchise began not with a train, but with a bus. Weekend engineering works meant the first Virgin Trains East Coast departure - the 7.45am from Leeds - was a bus replacement service to York.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/vir ... 78107.html

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:01 pm

Passions high indeed.
I gave no view beyond stating an observation,not disputed.
Unfortunately,that results in the coalescing of unwarranted ire
An easy target granted,but not the right one.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:01 pm

I don't think Labour can give a position on the "deal". It was only leaked last Tuesday night - late - and the official policy was only confirmed by Osborne on Friday.
There has got to be a lot of fact finding who-knew-what-where-and-when before any statements are made. Act in hast, repent at leisure and all that.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:07 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:I don't think Labour can give a position on the "deal". It was only leaked last Tuesday night - late - and the official policy was only confirmed by Osborne on Friday.
There has got to be a lot of fact finding who-knew-what-where-and-when before any statements are made. Act in hast, repent at leisure and all that.

That's my position too AAW. But it needs a clear statement sooner rather than later because this is what real 'weaponisation' of the NHS looks like. Ideally something before PMQs.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:07 pm

Just been on the website re starter homes for under 40's (not that I fit either category....)

Looked for my postcode because there is some house building going on within a stones throw of me.

Whoops, seems it's all an illusion (nice cheap prices you will note in the few houses for sale)

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Mon 02 Mar, 2015 1:11 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:In reply to Robert and ephe - I'm not happy about this either. At all.

(and you know what a loyalist I normally am, so I don't say such a thing lightly)

But I'm buggered if I'm going to let it deflect me from the fact this coming GE is one of the most important of my lifetime. I still have confidence in the likes of Miliband and Burnham, and both hope and expect that they will turn this dog's breakfast into something that we can at least live with.

Get a Tory-based government again in two months, then that is the end of the NHS as we have known it. And the welfare state more generally. Not to mention the United Kingdom itself.

The stakes are that high.

Hello all - long time reading but not logged in - for lots of generally miserable reasons. Anyway this is more a comment on the general unhappiness about Manchester than a specific reply to anyone. Surely any discussions about devolving power/ budgets or anything else anywhere in England have to be part and parcel of the constitutional convention or whatever it will be called that Labour intend to have in relation to devolution in England. I know more about Scotland than Wales, but the devolution settlements were not back of a fag packet nor a response to George Osborne's election manipulation but discussed, consulted on and decided over a reasonable period of time. How else can we have a NHS with both political and professional boundaries and responsibilities that makes sense and protects a whole population provision realistically? I'd really like Labour to say they will deal with any internal issues this might have thrown up but that they refuse to be dragged into short term political posturing about something that is essential to all of us living in the UK. To me this is about how devolution should not fragment national commitments but live within the constraints they require.