Posted by

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Regeneration, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Reminder: Port Royal (Sidmouth) meeting tomorrow

“Public Meeting this

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

from 7-9pm
All Saints Church Hall, All Saints Road, Sidmouth EX10 8ES

Organised by 3Rs campaign ..Retain, Refurbish, Reuse..an alternative plan for Port Royal

Details provided by the organisers, as follows:

Retain Refurbish and Reuse
Public meeting Wednesday 23rd August
Purpose of the meeting:
To present an alternative vision for Port Royal for East Devon District Council and Sidmouth Town Council to consider.
We shall discuss how to:
-Retain existing buildings and uses, for the benefit of all;
-Refurbish buildings;
-Renew street furniture;
-‘Green’ the car parks etc;
-Reuse old buildings and spaces such as the Drill Hall and old boat park behind the Ham play area.

The meeting will include presentations and discussion on:

-a summary of the consultation findings
-Neighbourhood Plan findings on Port Royal
-the current EDDC proposal
-ideas for an alternative vision
-how an alternative vision could be funded and delivered
We want to hear your views and answer questions
Where to next? Protest, petition, write letters!

To help get this alternative considered, it’s important that you :

-Sign the petition online: search 38 degrees Sidmouth Retain
-Write to Town and District Councillors to explain what you want
-Join us on Facebook: Retain Refurbish Reuse
-Attend the picnic on the Ham on 27th August from 1-4pm

Public Meeting this Wednesday, 23 August . Organised by 3Rs campaign ..Retain, Refurbish, Reuse..an alternative plan for Port Royal

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

Hunt v Hawking – no contest!

Guardian letters:

“• Jeremy Hunt’s tweeted dismissal of Hawking’s article (How to solve the NHS crisis – scientifically, 19 August) is revealing: “Stephen Hawking is brilliant physicist but wrong on lack of evidence 4 weekend effect.2015 Fremantle [sic] study most comprehensive ever”.

If Hunt bases policy on a single publication (which no serious observer would do) then he should read it, and he would see Freemantle’s warning: “It is not possible to ascertain the extent to which these excess deaths may be preventable; to assume that they are avoidable would be rash and misleading.”

Freemantle found that patients admitted over the weekend are more seriously ill and more likely to die. Nobody denies that the “weekend effect” exists, but one must not jump to the facile and unsubstantiated conclusion that it reflects quality of care.

Hunt cherrypicks not only the evidence but even the authors’ interpretation.
Dr Richard O’Brien
Highbridge, Somerset

Jeremy Hunt accuses Stephen Hawking of ‘pernicious falsehood’ in NHS row

• Privately provided services, with their bank loan costs, dividend payments and management add-ons, cost far more than state-funded ones. The administration of privatisation, with the consultants, lawyers, accountants, billing agents etc involved in franchising NHS services, also add substantial costs. Hospital PFIs (private finance initiatives) have evidenced the billions that privatisation is costing the NHS and taxpayer.

Yet the government’s and NHS England’s “reconfiguring” of the NHS is using regional accountable care organisations (ACOs) which allow for extended involvement of the private sector in the running and provisioning of NHS services. This not only accepts the continuing financial burden of privatisation to the taxpayer, but allows further costs to that burden.

ACOs, and other NHS England plans such as the move from the family GP practice model to a system of commercially driven super-clinics called multi-speciality community providers, originate from the US’s notoriously costly and flawed healthcare system. The plans have been drawn up by business consultants with extensive US interests like McKinsey and Optum, a subsidiary of US private health provider/private health insurer United Health. NHS England’s CEO Simon Stevens is a former UnitedHealth senior executive.

Professor Hawking’s concerns about the privatisation and Americanisation of the NHS are therefore unsurprising. Removing all the privatisation apparatus from the NHS would allay such concerns, which are shared by many. The savings that this would make would cover the lion’s share of the costs of the extra demands facing the NHS (the ageing population etc) which are blamed for making the NHS “unaffordable”.
John Furse
London

• I am 100% behind Stephen Hawking’s attack on the Tories over the plight of the NHS. As a nurse for the last 40 years, I think that the NHS is by far the best health system in the world and it is only surviving because of the deep commitment of thousands of medical and admin staff to a worthy cause. I know for a fact that after the referendum results, scores of foreign doctors and nurses started to leave our large local hospital, for fear that they would not be allowed the freedom to stay. This has left our hospital grossly understaffed and under tremendous pressure. Others have gone off sick with severe stress after all the extra hours they are expected to put in to care for patients.

The Tories’ recent promise to provide training for thousands of medical students and nurses in a few years’ time is of no use whatsoever. Something drastic is needed now and that is to give the nurses the pay rise that others are getting. With conditions and pay at such an all-time low, how else are they going to recruit any new nurses?
Sue Ingleby
Gloucester

• What wise words from Prof Hawking and what a pathetic response from Jeremy Hunt. Hawking is right to draw attention to the vast amounts of public money going into the coffers of private organisations for services that could be handled better and cheaper in-house. The question of agencies providing nurses to fill gaps is analogous with those providing supply teachers. Previously hospitals relied on their own “banks” to provide cover for absentees, usually drawn from any of their own staff who requested extra shifts. The advantage of employing their known staff is obvious. Schools requiring temporary help could contact their local education authority (now sadly almost defunct) which kept a list of qualified teachers requesting temporary work. No money was exchanged, unlike today where in many cases the agency charges both the professional worker and the employer. How did we allow this to happen?
Ruth Lewis
Potters Bar, Hertfordshire

• Stephen Hawking’s article is so wonderfully simple and beautiful it made me want to cry. How precious the NHS is and how much it means to us. Thanks to him for writing it and to the Guardian for printing it. It should be printed in all the newspapers.
Jenny Bushell
London”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Education (local)

Comments

1 Comment

University Vice-Chancellors in the butter, students paying for it

“Another MP has resigned from his role at the University of Bath in protest against its vice-chancellor’s £451,000 pay package.

Darren Jones, Labour MP for Bristol North West, became the fourth politician to step down from the university’s court, a statutory body representing the interests of the university stakeholders, in protest over Dame Glynis Breakwell’s pay deal. His resignation on Tuesday afternoon follows those of two Labour colleagues Kerry McCarthy, MP for Bristol East, and David Drew, MP for Stroud,. as well as Andrew Murrison, Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire.

As the mounting resignations prompted former Labour education minister Andrew Adonis to call for Breakwell to stand down, Jones said: “Students in my constituency are paying increasingly high tuition fees, with many families helping their children out with the costs associated with going to university.

“Vice-chancellors pay needs to be set within the context of value for money. And students take on excessive debt to get a good education, not to pay bloated executive pay.”

The issue of pay was raised by Lord Adonis in an article for the Guardian earlier this month.

University vice-chancellors are paid too much, says Lord Adonis
Murrison resigned from the university court last week, saying university bosses were “looking increasingly like a self-serving cartel”.

The series of resignations also puts the squeeze on a government already facing pressure to investigate the high salaries awarded to vice-chancellors, amid mounting accusations that students’ tuition fees are being used to inflate the pay packets of senior management.

McCarthy and Drew said Breakwell’s salary, as well as those of senior staff, could not be justified when students were taking on debts of £60,000 to pay fees.

McCarthy said her resignation was about “sending out a signal”.

She said: “I’ve been concerned for quite some time about the level of vice-chancellors’ pay; it’s the fact it’s now coupled with increasing pressures on students. It’s not just that student fees have gone up to £9,000 a year, but the interest they’re being charged on those has gone up to about 6%.

“And I know that ordinary academic staff who are on pretty modest incomes have generally had their pay held back to a 1% pay rise. We’ve got it at local government level, where you’ve got chief executives that are on several hundred thousand a year, quite a few of their senior officers are on more than the prime minister, and yet you’re holding back pay rises for the bin men.

“I think it sends out a very poor signal to the students if the impression they’re given is they are the ones bearing the financial burden.”

Subsequent to the resignations, Adonis said a pay reduction for Breakwell would not be enough to solve the problem.

“The crisis at the university of Bath can only now be resolved one way, which is by the resignation of the vice-chancellor,” he told the Guardian. “It’s clear that she’s progressively losing the support of her court and council, and for very good reason. Her pay and conduct has been unacceptable.”

The peer has previously called for an inquiry in the House of Lords and criticised the “serious controversy” of salary increases awarded to Breakwell, along with benefits such as “a large house in the historic centre of Bath”, and non-executive directorships she holds.

Jones said on Tuesday that he agreed with Adonis that government should undertake an inquiry into public sector executive pay. “I have therefore resigned from my ex officio position on the court of Bath University as a sign of my support for such a review,” he said.

While Breakwell is top of the salary list, the controversy is not unique to Bath. Vice-chancellors received an average salary package of £277,834 in the last academic year, more than six times the average pay of university staff.

A report released by University and College Union (UCU) in February revealed that 23 British universities had increased the pay packages of their vice-chancellors by 10% or more in 2015-16. Fifty-five universities paid their heads more than £300,000, with 11 vice-chancellors earning more than £400,000 a year.

Breakwell’s package was an 11% rise on the previous year, despite a 1.1% cap on pay for non-managerial staff across the higher education sector.

The Higher Education and Funding council for England (‌Hefce), the universities charities watchdog, has been asked to examine whether Breakwell’s salary is in line with charitable duties and responsibilities. It has said it would investigate “governance in relation to the remuneration committee of the university”.

Jo Johnson, the universities minister, has told universities that in future they will have to justify exceptionally high salaries.

A University of Bath spokesperson said: “We are providing Hefce with all the information they have requested including in relation to meetings of university court. The university does not intend to comment further on these matters until such time as Hefce have concluded their investigation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/22/two-more-mps-quit-bath-university-roles-over-vice-chancellors-pay

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

East Devon Tories

Comments

1 Comment

Tory Party could be a minority party rather soon!

Especially as people are for the first time in decades people are dying younger.

“Former Conservative deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine has warned the electoral base is dying off at a rate of 2 per cent a year and has called for a new party leader.

Lord Heseltine, who worked with Margaret Thatcher and was deputy to John Major, said the party needs to work hard to “restore its electoral fortunes” and that Theresa May should step down after a “matter of months”. …

“One thing which is just worth having in mind, and you can’t do anything about it, 2 per cent of the older part of the electorate die every year – they are 70 per cent Conservative,” Lord Heseltine told Sky News.

”Another 2 per cent come in at the young end of the electorate – they are about 70 per cent Labour. That’s about 2 per cent change each year. There isn’t that much time. …“

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/conservative-voters-dying-off-lord-michael-heseltine-tory-part-elderly-support-base-pensioners-a7798386.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Health and Social Care (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, NHS (local), Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Comments

1 Comment

County councils say they cannot meet bed-blocking targets

Owl bangs on: Closing Seaton and Honiton hospital beds was NOT about patient care it was simply about THIS. And no use whinging Devonians – if you voted Conservative (and you did in sufficient numbers to ensure a majority on EDDC and DCC) this IS what you voted for and the buck does stop with YOU as much as them – and if you keep voting them in, it will get even worse:

“County council leaders have written to health secretary Jeremy Hunt asking him to reconsider proposals to withhold social care funding if bed-blocking targets are not met.

Under new guidance produced by the Department of Health last week, county authorities would have to reduce delayed discharges from hospitals by an average by 43% within the next few months – double the target of London.

Herefordshire has a target of a 69% reduction whilst Suffolk has a target of 67%, which county leaders have called “undeliverable” and “arbitrary”.

Colin Noble, County Councils Network health and social care spokesman, described the targets as a “backwards step” and said the resulting lack of funding would push services to breaking point.

“It is perverse that this money – designed to ease pressures – could be taken away if we cannot hit virtually undeliverable and arbitrary targets within a very short time period,” he said.

Noble highlighted that counties are the least well funded councils for social care and urged the government to draw up a sustainable solution not a “double whammy” of underfunding and the prospect of funds being withdrawn.

The CCN notes that the problem facing rural councils is even more acute because they contain the fastest growing elderly populations yet are the worst funded councils for social care.

In total, the 37 county authorities receive £2bn less funding for health and social care than other parts of the country, according to the network.

The CCN argues that there is no quick fix to the issue of delayed discharges and only one third of them nationally are attributable to social care.

Noble called on the government to develop long-lasting reform to social care that makes the system work better. He said counties, which spend 47% of the nation’s total expenditure on social care, want to work with the government to better integrate services.

However, the network argues the social care funding crisis will only be solved if funding discrepancies between rural and urban councils are resolved in tandem with a long-term sustainable funding settlement for all councils.

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “No one should stay in hospital longer than necessary. It puts unneeded pressure on our hospitals and wastes taxpayers’ money.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/08/counties-urge-hunt-rethink-bed-blocking-targets

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

Care homes – a dying industry

“Care homes are teetering “on the edge” and a chronic shortage of funding risks “catastrophic failure” within the National Health Service, the businessman expected to be the biggest operator of residential homes has warned.

Chai Patel, chairman of HC-One, which could take over more than 120 homes from Bupa, predicted that six national chains would emerge to dominate the market by benefiting from economies of scale. The acquisition would enable his company to expand to about 350 homes with 22,000 care beds and become the biggest in the sector.

There is immense pressure on care homes amid government funding cuts and an increase in costs since all adults over 25 became eligible for the national living wage. Some small operators are quitting, with 144 care homes closing last year and a loss of about 2,000 beds a year. Many more are “zombie” homes, feared to be close to bankruptcy as struggling councils force down the rates they pay.

A shortage of capacity means that the number of people in residential homes has not increased in line with rising longevity, forcing many frail and elderly people to rely on specialist care in their own homes.

In an interview with The Times, Dr Patel admitted: “There is no question the sector itself is on the edge.” He added: “The impact of chronic under-funding of social care will result in catastrophic failure in the NHS.”

and underneath this article:

“An investment group that is set to be the biggest care homes owner in Britain has vowed that it will not become the next Southern Cross.

HC-One is poised to acquire about 120 homes from Bupa, possibly through a debt and equity deal amid unease about the implications for the group’s debt levels and with memories of Southern Cross’s collapse fresh in the memory.

Southern Cross, which once ran more than 750 care homes and had 37,000 beds and some 41,000 staff, failed in 2011 when all its homes were taken over by their landlords.

The equity for the Bupa purchase, which is close to completion, is understood to be being provided by Stepstone Real Estate and Safanad, an investment firm, and the debt arranged through Deutsche Bank and Apollo Global Management.

The acquisition of more than 9,000 beds from Bupa would take HC-One’s total to almost 22,000 and catapult it above Barchester Healthcare and Four Seasons Health Care. HC-One rose from the ashes of Southern Cross when it acquired about a third of the homes and has expanded through two other acquisitions since 2015. The purchase of Helen McArdle Care, which had 20 homes, was funded through debt.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

22 Aug 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Austerity cuts, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

The erosion of democracy to serve the cult of celebrity and business

From an article about how Boris Johnsom frittered away nearly a billion pounds on projects that came to nothing while he was London mayor – echoes of the East Devon Business Forum, the Local Enterprise Partnership, Greater Exeter …

“… Still, Johnson merely highlights a number of problems. He shows what happens when our celebrity culture, in which he has a starring role, fuses with an era of denuded press and desiccated politics. This is the age of the administrative monarch. We are encouraged to place power and trust in individuals of purported unparalleled wisdom, vision and probity. Mayors, metro mayors, police commissioners, superheads; we outsource to individuals, increasing their power in the belief they will get things done, unencumbered by faint hearts and red tape.

By this thinking, democratic checks and balances are a bother. There can, in this political calibration, be some light-touch monitoring, but the monarch must have all the power. True democracy can be such a millstone.

This is a philosophy tilted towards business in its many lucrative interactions with the public sector, for it sends a message that the special individual talents of the market do not need the democratic or collective checks and balances that might save us from folly. We saw this in the framing of the London mayoralty, where the initial hope was that a Richard Branson or a Greg Dyke would seize the sceptre. That didn’t work out. Instead of an industry titan, the befuddled lawmakers ended up with Ken Livingstone, the very antithesis of their hopes, and then Johnson.

But the thinking endures that true progress needs turbo-empowered individuals in whom we endow complete trust, as we might for a pilot or a brain surgeon, because their knowledge and drive and networking prowess surpasses our understanding. Theresa May sought that sort of unquestioning trust when she implored us not to worry our pretty little heads and to give her complete and personal authority to do as she pleased in Brussels. The country eventually called her out on that, but isn’t it time to question that philosophy everywhere?

Isn’t it time to reassess the extent to which we have loosened the regulatory structures? The Tory-led coalition scrapped the audit commission and with it a level of scrutiny that once gave the reckless pause. The Standards Board for England, responsible for monitoring ethical standards in local government, was doused in ministerial petrol and thrown on to the same so-called bonfire of the quangos.

At the same time, the right or expectation that local councillors, representing their communities, should sit on the boards of organisations in receipt of public funds – such as schools, housing associations and private firms delivering communal services – has been steadily eroded.

Our system is a largely a centralised one, but still the canny determined mayor can disengage the handbrake knowing that no one can, in real time, reapply it. Voters can assert their authority at some point on the journey, but it may be some way down the road. By that point the vehicle, recklessly driven, may have crashed. And by the time the authorities arrive, the driver may well have legged it.

So these leaders may never be held to account. Maybe they have already left office. The heat turns down, the world moves on. The protection of celebrity deflects the glare. Isn’t that what’s happened in the case of the garden bridge and all of the wasteful, ill-conceived Johnsonian follies?

But isn’t it also – in terms of the public’s apparent inability to bring poor and reckless administrators to account – what’s happened in universities up and down the country? Vice-chancellors on grotesquely bloated salaries charge £9,000-plus tuition fees without any improvement in the offer to students. And in notorious academy schools, deified super-heads have taken advantage of huge pay cheques and light public supervision to provide pupils with a substandard education.

We have grown scornful of the mundanities of democracy. The celebrity-as-saviour populist version excites. But the dull, traditional, sometimes tortuous structures – with checks and balances and inquests and punishments – existed for a reason. With them grand projects took longer, consensus was required, and foolhardy stewardship carried risks. But without them we spend millions on the dream of a flowery bridge while services atrophy, food banks flourish, and the designers of that outrage move onwards and upwards.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/boris-johnson-940-million-system-to-blame