“Rough sleeping in Britain is forecast to rise by 76% in the next decade unless the government takes urgent action, homelessness charity Crisis has stated.

The charity today published its analysis of homelessness in all its guises in England, Scotland and Wales, prompting housing groups to warn the problem is likely to get worse unless more housing becomes available and there are changes to welfare.

According to Crisis, in 2016:

9,100 people were sleeping rough
68,300 households were sofa surfing
37,200 households were living in hostels
19,300 households were living in unsuitable temporary accommodation
12,100 households living in squats
8,900 households sleeping in tents, cars or on public transport
5,000 households in women’s refuges or winter night shelters.

The report warns that, if current policies continue unchanged, the most acute forms of homelessness are likely to keep rising, with overall numbers estimated to increase by 26.5% and households in unsuitable temporary accommodation set to rise by 93%.”

“Labour criticises government hospital asset sales”

“Labour has accused the government of selling off valuable hospital assets to help plug a hole in NHS finances.

Figures from data body NHS Digital show that the amount of NHS land in England earmarked for sale has more than doubled in the past year.
Analysis commissioned by Labour found 117 sites deemed surplus were still in medical or clinical use.

Ministers said selling land would give vital funds for patient care and free up space for much needed new housing.

The government has set itself a target of selling off enough public sector land to generate £5bn worth of income by 2020.

The NHS is asked to contribute as a major property owner.

NHS property being included for sale includes hospital buildings and some ambulance stations.

But Labour said hospitals were being stripped of their assets and forced into a “fire sale”.

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: “This government’s refusal to fund the health service has seen standards of care for patients drop and NHS building and upgrade works pushed back.

“The NHS needs an urgent injection of funding to make up for years of Tory underfunding, but the answer is not a blanket sell-off of sites which are currently being used for patient care.”

The Department for Health said disposing of surplus land and buildings reduced running costs and it was right to put sites that were no longer needed to economic use.

It said any income generated would be used to improve the quality of the NHS.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40883502

“Secret NHS land sales” by Tory Government

“A secret “fire sale” of hospital land – including dozens of properties still being used for medical care – is planned to bail out the cash-strapped NHS, new documents show.

The Department of Health has quietly doubled the amount of land it intends to dispose of, triggering accusations of desperate measures to plug a big hole in NHS finances.

Details of more than half of the 1,300 hectares now up for sale have been kept under wraps because of “sensitivity” – raising suspicions that many other sites also have clinical uses.

Today’s analysis, carried out for Labour by the House of Commons Library, went through Department of Health data of land that NHS organisations “have deemed surplus” and eligible for sale.

Of the 543 plots, totaling 1,332 hectares – worth many hundreds of millions of pounds – 117 are currently being used for clinical or medical purposes, Labour said.

However, data on 734 of those hectares, spread over 63 sites, has been held back due to “issues of sensitivity”, the analysis found.

Jonathan Ashworth, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, claimed a long-running failure to fund the NHS properly had forced “a blanket sell-off of sites which are currently being used for patient care”.

“Crumbling hospitals are in desperate need of investment for repair and renewal,” Mr Ashworth said.

“But the Government must provide that investment, not strip hospitals of their assets and force them into a fire sale.

“There has been a huge rise in the amount of NHS land available for sale this year, but for more than half of it the Government are keeping the details secret and refusing to fully answer reasonable questions.

“It all adds to the suspicion that ministers are drawing up secret plans for a fire sale of valuable NHS assets to plug the black hole in their finances.”

The criticism comes as Labour launches a major assault on the Prime Minister’s management of the NHS, warning her tenure has seen rising waiting times, cancelled operations and a growing crisis in social care.

However, the Department of Health hit back, insisting only truly unwanted land would be sold – with the cash raised ring-fenced to improve NHS services.

“There will be no ‘fire sale’ of NHS assets, but we continue with our ongoing efforts to help hospitals dispose of land they do not need,” a spokesman said.

“This will provide vital funds for the NHS to spend on patient care and free-up space for much needed homes.”

Ms May’s adoption of the Naylor report triggered criticism during the campaign. Dr Kailash Chand, the former deputy chairman of the British Medical Association, called it “an outline to sell off the NHS”.

The NHS Confederation then urged the Government to step back, calling for the land to be set aside for homes for NHS staff unable to buy on the open market, because of the housing crisis.

It linked the housing shortage to rising NHS vacancies, with 15 per cent of registered nursing jobs unfilled and 12 per cent of positions at GP practices vacant.

The most valuable site on today’s surplus list is the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, in Stanmore, London, which has a market value of £38.75m.

Other highly-priced locations include the Ida Darwin Hospital, in Cambridge (£20m), two sites at Broadmoor Hospital, in Berkshire (£16.75m and £11m), the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, in Bath (£10m) and Papworth Hospital, in Cambridgeshire (also £10m).

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn, on a visit to Cornwall, will focus on the condition of the NHS to mark the release of performance data up to the point of the Prime Minister’s first anniversary in No 10.

He will say that, after 11 months, nearly 2.4 million people had waited more than four hours for treatment in casualty departments – or one in 10 patients.

Suspected stroke sufferers faced only a 50-50 chance of getting to a hospital within one hour and about 270,000 people had been added to NHS waiting lists.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-hospital-land-secret-sale-tories-privatisation-sell-off-theresa-may-labour-warning-medical-sites-a7885071.html

Special interest groups (such as blogs) and democracy

Summary of article:

“How should the interest group process operate in a liberal democracy?

• Elected representatives and politicians should recognise a need for continuous dialogue between decision-makers and different sections of the public over detailed policy choices. Procedures for involving interest groups in consultations should cover the full range of stakeholders whose interests are materially affected by policy choices.

• The resources for organising collective voice and action in pressure groups, trade unions, trade associations, non-governmental organisations, charities, community groups and other forms should be readily available. In particular, decision-makers should recognise the legitimacy of collective actions and mobilisations.

• The costs of organising effectively should be low and within reach of any social group or interest. State or philanthropic assistance should be available to ensure that a balanced representation of all affected interests can be achieved in the policy process.

• Decision-makers should recognise inequalities in resources across interest groups, and discount for different levels of ‘organisability’ and resources.

• Policy makers should also re-weight the inputs they receive so as to distinguish between shallow or even ‘fake’ harms being claimed by well-organised groups, and deeper harms potentially being suffered by hard-to-organise groups.

• Other aspects of liberal democratic processes, such as the ‘manifesto doctrine’ that elected governments implement all components of their election programmes, do not over-ride the need to consult and listen in detail to affected groups, and to choose policy options that minimise harms and maximise public legitimacy and consensus support.

• Since policy-makers must sometimes make changes that impose new risks and costs across society, they should in general seek to allocate risks to those groups best able to insure against them.”

The some paragraphs from the article:

“Between elections, a well-organised interest groups process generates a great deal of useful and perhaps more reliable information for policy-makers about preference intensities. By undertaking different levels of collective action along a continuum of participation opportunities, and incurring costs in doing so, ordinary citizens can accurately indicate how strongly they feel about issues to decision-makers.

So sending back a pre-devised public feedback form, writing to an MP, supporting an online petition to the government, or tweeting support for something indicates a low level of commitment. Paying membership fees to an interest group or going to meetings shows more commitment, and gives the group legitimacy and weight with politicians. Going on strike or marching in a demonstration indicates a higher level of commitments still. A well-organised interest group process will allow for a huge variety of ways in which citizens can indicate their views. …

This area of policy-making has been stable for many years, with occasional fringe scandals. Two small changes have taken place recently. The 2014 Lobbying Act introduced an official register of paid lobbyists operating with MPs in Westminster and in touch with Whitehall departments. But this was on a rather restrictive basis, affecting especially paid-for lobbying firms and some groups with developed governmental or parliamentary liaison operations.

The lobbying industry (estimated by some sources to be worth £2bn a year) also remains self-regulated. For a period during the bill’s passage (2013-14), the Cabinet Office proposals seemed to threaten to make academics, universities and a wide range of charities advocating for policy changes register too. But after much criticism this proposal was fought off. However, the legislation is still somewhat controversial – particularly among charities, who complain that it stifles them before election campaigns. …

Nobody now claims that the UK’s interest group process is an equitable one. There are big and powerful lobbies, medium influence groups and no hopers battling against a hostile consensus. Democracy requires that each interest be able to effectively voice their case, and have it heard by policymakers on its merits, so that the group can in some way shape the things that matter most to them. On the whole, the first (voice) criterion is now easily met in Britain. But achieving any form of balanced, deliberative consideration of interests by policymakers remains an uphill struggle. Business dominance is reduced but still strong, despite the shift to cognitive competition and more evidence-based policy-making.”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/08/10/audit-2017-how-democratic-and-effective-is-the-interest-group-process-in-the-uk/