Category Archives: Inequality

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, EDDC, Inequality

“More than 3,000 families on East Devon council housing list”

“In the last three years, the list has grown by around 46 per cent, a Freedom of Information (FoI) request submitted by the Herald has revealed.

Council bosses have said one of the reasons for the rise is that many applicants cannot afford to rent privately or purchase a home in the district, so turn to the authority and housing associations for assistance.

The statistics, released by East Devon District Council (EDDC), revealed there were more than 620 people on the waiting list in Sidmouth, including 171 children.

Compared to the rest of the district, Sidmouth had the third highest number of families on the list. This included around 41 single parents, 229 households of one or two people, 31 families of three, 32 families of four, 12 families of five, 11 families of six and one family of seven.

In Ottery St Mary, there are 375 people on this list and, of this, 251 are adults. This mean that 33 per cent of those waiting were children, leaving Ottery with the highest percentage of children waiting on the list compared with anywhere else in East Devon.

Overall there are 156 families waiting in Ottery – this includes 95 households with one or two people, 25 families of the three, 24 families of four, six families of five, four families of six and two families of seven.

Across East Devon, as of November 30, 2017, there were 3,143 families on the waiting list.

When looking at the numbers for the last three years, the statistics showed that the amount of people on the list had slowly been increasing.

In 2014/15, there were 2,297 households waiting and by March 2017 there were 3,361.

Although, as of November 30, the number of households on the waiting list had dropped by around 6.9 per cent.

An EDDC spokeswoman said the authority’s housing register was one of its barometers of housing need in the district.

She added: “We are constantly monitoring movements in the housing register 
and trying to secure new affordable housing where 
needs arise.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/more-than-3-000-families-on-east-devon-council-housing-list-1-5342898

Housing completions for private housing (ie those ready to move into, not those with planning permission) are woeful, as developers drip-feed their expensive houses to keep prices high:

Click to access combined-hmu-30-sept-2016.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Lobbying, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“A THIRD of Tory donations come from a tiny group of rich men who enjoy lavish dinners with Theresa May”

Owl says: The Conservative Party – DEFINITELY for the FEW and not the MANY!

“More than a third of donations to the Tories last year came from a tiny group of super-rich men who enjoy lavish secretive dinners with Theresa May.

Research reveals how much Britain’s party of government depends on a band of millionaires for survival.

And it comes despite Mrs May vowing in 2007: “To restore public trust we must remove the dependency of the political parties on all large donors.”

Labour analysed donations by the 64 people – 62 of them men – who attended ‘Leader’s Group’ dinners, hosted by the Prime Minister and other senior ministers, in the first half of last year.

The Conservative Party trousered £12.9million from these donors or their firms in 2017, Labour’s research shows – 39% of all cash donations to the Tories across the year declared so far.

More than a third of the dinners’ attendees were on the Sunday Times Rich List, which brings together the 1,000 wealthiest people in Britain.

And almost half were from the world of finance including hedge fund bosses Sir Michael Hintze, a billionaire knighted under David Cameron who gave £345,000, and Andrew Law who gave £604,000.

Financiers at the dinners gave £4.5million between them – while £3.7million came from Brexit backers.

Ferrari-collecting JCB billionaire Lord Bamford and his family, the 35th-richest people in Britain and prominent donors to Vote Leave, topped the list by giving £2.5million to the Tories personally and through their firms in 2017.

Major donor diners also included Addison Lee cab firm founder John Griffin, housebuilding billionaire John Bloor, and spread-betting tycoon and former Tory co-Treasurer Peter Cruddas.

Other attendees were oil tycoon Ian Taylor who rejected a knighthood in David Cameron’s 2016 ‘crony honours’, and Arbuthnot private bank boss Sir Henry Angest and Tory chief executive Sir Mick Davis – both knighted under Mr Cameron a year earlier.

The only two women among the 64 diners gave £328,000 between them.

Socialite, philanthropist and friend of Bill Clinton Alisa Swidler gave £87,000 while Lubov Chernukhin, the banker wife of Russia’s former deputy finance minister, gave £241,000.

David Cameron denied Ms Chernukhin was a “Putin crony” in 2014 when it emerged she had paid £160,000 for a tennis match with the then-Prime Minister and Boris Johnson.

The Conservative Party website boasts tycoons can pay £50,000 to join the Leader’s Group and attend private dinners with Theresa May and ministers as part of efforts “to defeat the rise of socialism”.

Despite David Cameron promising to publish regular lists of attendees, those for the first half of 2017 were only released several months late after pressure from the Mirror.

We revealed Theresa May dined on lobster and beef with several donors at a secret London venue hours after confirming millions of people’s benefits would be frozen.

No minutes of the dinner meetings are ever published, and the Conservatives refuse to say what is discussed at them.

And the meals are limited to a tight circle of ministers, with only Mrs May, Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond and five other Cabinet ministers taking part in the first six months of 2017.

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett said: “The Prime Minister once said her party needed to remove its dependency on large donors and that she would not be driven by the interests of the rich and powerful.

“But after having to wait almost a year for the Tories to come clean about who is buying access to her and her senior ministers, we can see that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“As always with the Tories, the real decisions are made with a small group of wealthy backers.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-how-third-tory-donations-11798246

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze

House of Lords: “best day care centre for elderly in London”

“As if the House of Lords did not already look like a private members’ club, an investigation by The Times has revealed that peers can continue to use the House of Lords’ subsidised dining rooms even after they retire.

That means former politicians, who were not elected but selected for the role – are enjoying cheap food and drink thanks to taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

In all, £1.2million per year is used to subsidise food and drink in the House of Lords.

A menu from the chamber, published following a Freedom of Information request in 2013, revealed a pint of draft beer cost £2.60 and a bottle of House of Lords claret is £14.80.

Meanwhile a two-course table d’hôte lunch costs £15.50, with main courses including sirloin beef and whole sea bream stuffed with olives and tomatoes.

Is it any wonder that Lib Dem life peer, Lord Tyler, described it as “the best day care centre for the elderly in London” in an interview for the BBC’s documentary Meet the Lords last year? …”

https://t.co/OLnjKDxSq9

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jan 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Inequality, Planning System

Age segregation in housing must end says think-tank

Owl says: They don’t mention age segregation by affluence, where rich older people can segregate (and isolate) themselves in luxury apartments, leaving the poorer elderly to try to rent inadequate housing. Now where might they be …!

“Britain must create 500 cross-generational housing, care home, school and nursery sites to break down “age apartheid” and heal social divisions, a think tank says.

The first wave of institutions should be set up within five years, it said, to reverse decades of social change that has increasingly kept younger and older generations apart.

The report by United For All Ages, which seeks to bring people together across generations, said that Britain was one of the most age-segregated countries in the world, resulting in loneliness and divided communities. This was driven in part by trends in housing, with many families living farther apart. High house prices meant that market towns and rural communities often had ageing populations while more inner city communities were dominated by young people, it said.

The problem was exacerbated by the diminished role in some communities of local shops, churches, pubs and clubs as retailers moved out of town or online, church attendance fell and pubs closed.

Changes in workplaces were also a factor, it said, as some industries attracted younger or older workforces while flexible or home working meant it was less common for people to mix with colleagues from several generations at work.

The study called on care providers, schools, planners and developers, ministers and local authorities to help to reverse the trend by creating institutions for shared use.

One example is a network of more than 450 multigeneration meeting houses developed in Germany as part of a government response to its ageing population. These host day care services for older people, parent-andtoddler groups, homework clubs, education courses and cafés, supported by volunteers. The report calls on nurseries, primary schools and care homes to develop similar spaces on their sites.

The Times reported in July how a nursery had become the first in Britain to open a site at a care home. Apples and Honey nursery opened its second site in a bungalow in the grounds of Nightingale House, a residential home for elderly Jewish men and women in Clapham, southwest London. Last month Downshall primary school in Redbridge, east London, opened a day centre three mornings a week for older people with dementia and depression to share activities with pupils.

The report urges planners to go further with cross-generation housing shared by older people and students, encouraging homeowners who want to downsize to subdivide their properties to create housing for families, and overlapping training for people to work in care homes and childcare.

Stephen Burke, director of United for All Ages, said: “Britain is dogged by divisions — we are divided by class, income, race, geography and age. The mistrust that arises from such divisions is fuelled by the lack of connection between different generations. This can breed myths and stereotypes, misunderstanding, ageism and exclusion. That’s why we believe mixing matters.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

London’s Metro newspaper tells us of of Swire’s clubable nature

“A fascinating Politico article details London’s private members clubs and the politicians who frequent them. As befits their stuffy image of pinstripe suits and ironed newspapers, most seem populated by Tory grandees – you can’t move in White’s or the Sublime Society of Beef Steaks without bumping into a HUGO SWIRE or Nicholas Soames.

Source: Metro newspaper, today, “Politics, Party and Pillow Talk” column edited by Guy Pewsey (page 20)

If, as one assumes, Swire is a member of one or both clubs, here are some details of them:

White’s

“The original old boys’ club, White’s is one of the oldest and most exclusive members’ clubs in London. Based in St James, it does not allow women in and Her Majesty The Queen is reportedly the only woman to have ever set foot through the door, according to the Daily Mail.

Prince William, Charles and the Duke of Wellington have all been members at some point, and David Cameron famously disowned the club in 2008 before becoming prime minister — despite the fact that his father was previously club chairman.

There is no online information about the club, but most reports suggest membership costs about £850 a year. New members will first need to be vouched for by some 35 signatories, the Daily Mail reports.”

http://uk.businessinsider.com/londons-most-exclusive-private-members-clubs-2017-5/#century-club-soho-750-plus-250-joining-fee-7

Sublime Society of Beef Steaks (aka Beefsteak Club):


(Count Nikolai Tolstoy wearing the traditional Beef Steaks Society uniform:

“Members continue to wear the traditional uniform, and woe betide that impious dog who unwittingly infringes our ancient laws. Under the Recorder’s stern gaze he is doomed to crawl around the table in a white sheet, or suffer some yet more humiliating punishment.

The President traditionally wears a Beefeater’s hat, and when it succumbed to age and rough usage a new one was formally presented at a Dinner by the Constable and Governor of the Tower. When the Recorder’s hat similarly required replacement, the Governor of the Chelsea Hospital likewise attended as a Guest and presented us with the traditional Pensioner’s tricorn.

For many years now the Society has found a congenial home in the Jacobite Room at Boisdale, where portraits of Members gaze approvingly down on the antics of their successors. This is thanks to Brother Macdonald, a much-valued Member of the Society, who has succeeded to the mantle of Brothers Rich, Arnold, and Irving in providing us with a happy and lasting home.”

As the Society’s toast has it:

“May BEEF and LIBERTY be our Reward!”

https://www.boisdale.co.uk/blog/the-sublime-society-of-beef-steaks-1735/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“’Fat Cat Thursday’: top bosses earn workers’ annual salary by lunchtime”

“Independent study of pay gap finds FTSE 100 bosses earning more in three days than typical worker will receive in entire year

Bosses of top British companies will have made more money by lunchtime on Thursday than the average UK worker will earn in the entire year, according to an independent analysis of the vast gap in pay between chief executives and everyone else.

The chief executives of FTSE 100 companies are paid a median average of £3.45m a year, which works out at 120 times the £28,758 collected by full-time UK workers on average.

On an hourly basis the bosses will have earned more in less than three working days than the average employee will pick up this year, leading campaigners to dub the day “Fat Cat Thursday”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/04/fat-cat-thursday-top-bosses-earn-workers-annual-salary-by-lunchtime

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“Windsor council calls for removal of homeless people before royal wedding”

“The leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – home to Windsor Castle, Eton College and Ascot racecourse – has demanded police use legal powers to clear the area of homeless people before the royal wedding in May.

Simon Dudley, the council’s Conservative leader, wrote to Thames Valley police this week seeking action against “aggressive begging and intimidation” and “bags and detritus” accumulating on the streets.

The letter, seen by the Guardian, follows a series of tweets sent by Dudley while on a skiing holiday in Wyoming over Christmas, in which he referred to “an epidemic of rough sleeping and vagrancy in Windsor” and said “residents have had enough of this exploitation of residents and 6 million tourists pa [per annum]”.

He tweeted that he would write to Thames Valley police “asking them to focus on dealing with this before the #RoyalWedding”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/03/windsor-council-calls-removal-homeless-people-before-royal-wedding

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jan 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local)

Comments

3 Comments

NHS crisis isn’t a crisis because the government has a plan!!!

Health spokesperson David Willets says it isn’t a crisis – just a bit uncomfortable for patients who have had operations cancelled!

“A crisis is when you haven’t got in place mitigations and you haven’t got a plan to deal with it. We’ve gone into this winter in a way that we’ve never prepared before, so we went into the winter before Christmas having cancelled fewer elective operations than we had previously, discharges from hospital were at a lower level than they had been previously, so we were better prepared.

We’ve also set up a national, regional and local structure – if you like, a winter pressures protocol – which we are invoking now and we are monitoring a whole series of things, activity in the service and the pressures.

We are monitoring the weather alerts in anticipation of weather changes because we know that’s important, and we also monitor the seasonal illnesses like flu.

Asked if what was happening would feel like a crisis to patients, he replied:

I fully accept that for the individual that will be really very uncomfortable, but what we know is if we don’t have a plan in place and we don’t do this in a structured way, what will happen, as we’ve had in previous winters, is lots of last-minute cancellations which is really distracting for patients, it’s inconvenient, it upsets the plans they’ve put together with their family, particularly for elderly patients where their care needs are often quite significant.

He said it was possible that further delays to non-urgent operations could be announced. Asked if there could be further postponements, he said:
That’s certainly a possibility … Intention always is not to cancel patients or postpone patients more than once – that’s one of the principles we try to follow – but clearly it is unpredictable, we don’t know what the weather we do, we don’t know the pressures in the system, we’re taking precautionary action here. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jan/03/nhs-crisis-brexit-theresa-may-needs-to-get-a-better-grip-on-nhs-crisis-says-senior-tory-politics-live

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Inequality, NHS (local), Privatisation

Judicial review of changes to NHS given go-ahead – with capped costs – but final £12,000 needed urgently

FROM: Crowdjustice
Press Release
Website for donations:

http://999callfornhs.org.uk/999-judicial-review/4593838706

“Update on Our NHS – comprehensive healthcare for all – STAGE 2

We have some very good news!

On Thursday 21st December our lawyers, Leigh Day, contacted us to tell us that a judge had considered our papers and those of NHS England and we now have permission for our JUDICIAL REVIEW to go ahead, at some time after 16th February 2018!

This is fantastic news as it means our papers and those of NHSE have been examined and the judge has recognised our legal arguments as a case that is important for public interest.

This is a real Christmas present.

And… despite NHS England stating that we should not be considered for a Capped Costs Order (the amount we have to pay the courts if we lose) the Judge has also agreed to a Capped Costs Order of £25,000.

Although this is more than than the £15,000 we had hoped for, the fact remains that the judge has agreed to it, which shows that he considers it is in the public interest for our case to be heard. It is a very positive gift for all of us. Capped Costs are not granted freely.

So the 999 Call Team have made the ONLY decision possible

We all voted unanimously that this was an opportunity we could NOT afford to turn down. We have notified Leigh Day we are going ahead and will campaign hard to raise the extra £12,000 to meet the £25,000 CCO and extra court procedure costs.

What this means is that we are going to have to open a new Round 3 of CrowdJustice fundraising to raise the extra money. We will be launching towards New Year’s Day as people begin to think of new opportunities, new adventures and new HOPE. Because that is what our Judicial Review offers all of us.

WE HOPE you can help us launch and promote it.

Today, just as we enter Christmas, you could forward and share this email with 3 or more of your friends – adding any personal message to help explain that Round 3 of our Healthcare For All Judicial Review fundraising is about to launch.

You could send them to visit our website page: 999 Judicial Review

You could highlight the fact that this case is not about one group or one region – it affects all of us, everyone up and down the country. Our JR is a real opportunity to bring into the open NHS England’s contentious contract for a new form of local NHS and social care organisation that is based on a business model used by the USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system. A system which only provides a limited range of healthcare for people who are too poor to pay for private health insurance.

Exposing this new NHS England contract to a review of its lawfulness is a vital step in protecting the NHS as a source of comprehensive healthcare for all who need it.

Thank you for all your support so far and we wish you and your loved ones a happy festive week ahead.

Please be on standby for the launch of Round 3. We need all of us now.”

Thanks from all the 999 Call for the NHS Team”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Dec 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Planning System

“Tories drop two flagship housing policies from key strategy document”

“Two of the Conservatives’ flagship housing policies have been dropped from a key government document, raising questions about the future of the plans.

The new “single departmental plan” published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not include a single reference to Starter Homes, which form a central plank of the Government’s commitment to increase home ownership, or of the planned extension of Right to Buy.

…In the latest version, five specific pledges to boost home ownership, including delivering Starter Homes and the extension of Right to Buy, have been downgraded to a single-line promise to “increase home ownership through schemes including Help to Buy”.

… Furthermore, a specific commitment to “increasing home ownership” has been absorbed into the broader aim of fixing “the broken housing market”.

… Ministers had promised to build 200,000 of them by 2020 but The Independent revealed last month that not a single Starter Home has yet been built. This led to officials admitting the policy remained an “ambition” – but have now removed all mention of it from DCLG’s housing objectives.

The previous iteration of the departmental plan included a clear commitment to the policy. It said: “We are delivering a major boost to affordable home ownership with Starter Homes and extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants.”

It reiterated a pledge to build 200,000 Starter Homes, including 30,000 on brownfield land – former industrial sites earmarked for development.

Labour said the omissions in the new document showed the Government had “given up” on helping first-time buyers.

John Healey, the party’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “With home ownership at a 30-year low and the number of younger homeowners in free fall, the Government has now given up on first-time buyers.

“We need much more affordable housing for younger people looking to buy their first home but ministers have erased new housing for first-time buyers from the Communities Department’s official objectives. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-housing-policy-starter-homes-right-to-buy-housing-association-sajid-javid-tories-a8119266.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Economy, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Privatisation

The price of Tory policies: tax and VAT rises and privatising NHS says IMF

Interesting that the IMF says that another £20 billion of spending cuts will be needed. That’s roughly how much Hunt wants to cut spending on the NHS.

The long game of 100% privatising the NHS – bringing with it rationing, post code lotteries and American-style health care approaches, appears to be nearing its conclusion.

As regards harmonising VAT at its higher rate – currently 20% – this would mean a 15% VAT increase on heating costs, all food and drink, charitable fundraising, equipment for disabled people, water, materials to insulate homes, boilers, children’s clothes …. the full list is here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

“Taxes will have to rise if the government is to balance the books by the middle of the next decade and the NHS may have to be privatised, the International Monetary Fund has warned.

Property taxes, the removal of preferential VAT rates for goods such as pasties, and higher national insurance contributions by the self-employed need to be considered if Britain is to have any chance of eliminating its budget deficit by 2025 because spending cuts have gone about as far as they can, the global economic watchdog said in its annual review of the UK.

Weak productivity and the increasing care demands of an ageing population will make deficit reduction harder. Public services such as the NHS may have to be scaled back or privatised, it added.

The warnings are a reminder of the persistent problem of Britain’s public finances almost a decade after the financial crisis caused borrowing to soar. National debt is 87 per cent of GDP and spending on public services exceeds revenue from taxes by more than 2 per cent of GDP.

“Continued deficit reduction is critical to create further room to respond to future shocks,” Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, said. “There is not much space for additional spending cuts and the revenue side of the equation has to be looked at.”

Britain is already forecast to be paying 34.3 per cent of GDP in tax by 2022, more than at any time since the 1950s, but economists estimate that at least £20 billion of extra austerity will be needed to hit the government’s target of balancing the books.

Ms Lagarde said population changes were adding to the problem. “Population ageing is expected to lead to material increases in spending on healthcare, pensions and long-term care, while productivity growth has been slow. And a slowly growing economy means fewer resources will be available to meet increased spending,” she said.

The public spending burden will soon make Britain face some hard choices, the IMF added. “The UK may face difficult decisions about the desired size of its public sector, as well as the mode of delivery and financing of public services. Brexit-related effects may exacerbate the challenge.”

To address the problem, Britain needs to boost productivity. Ms Lagarde welcomed the chancellor’s £31 billion fund for infrastructure investment and focus on technical qualifications because “the UK underinvests in infrastructure and falls short in human capital development”. But she said that more needed to be done “such as easing planning restrictions and reforming property taxes to boost housing supply”.

As well as introducing a land tax, the government should harmonise VAT for goods that get preferential rates and better “align the tax treatment of employees and the self-employed”. Both proposals have proved a poisoned chalice for chancellors. George Osborne tried to harmonise VAT rates for hot food in his “omnishambles budget” and Philip Hammond had to backtrack this year on raising national insurance for the self-employed. The IMF also recommended “reducing the tax code’s bias towards debt” and scrapping the triple lock on state pensions.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said: “The IMF has played the role of the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future to remind the chancellor that seven years of Tory failure is undermining our economy.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality, Persimmon, Planning System

Obscene Persimmon bonuses – add nearly £41,000 to cost of each house

Guardian Letters:

“What do management bonuses mean to the average customer? Persimmon’s CEO will receive a bonus of £110m. Senior staff bonuses will exceed £500m. Persimmon builds approximately 15,000 houses a year. Arguably, therefore, the CEO’s bonus adds at least £7,333 to the price of a house and the senior staff bonuses add £33,333. It is unlikely that the customer would think it money well spent.”
Martin Jeffree

AND

“Surely the housebuilding company Persimmon can now afford to run its own help-to-buy scheme.”
David Simpson

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Dec 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Inequality

“Theresa May Says Just Because Children Are Homeless It Does Not Mean They Live On The Street”

Theresa May has defended the government’s record on homelessness by arguing that just because there are thousands of homeless children it does not necessarily mean they have to sleep on the streets.

Labour MP Rosena Allin-Khan said 2,500 children would wake up homeless in Wandsworth, south London, on Christmas Day. “When will this austerity driven government say enough is enough and put an and end to this tragedy?” she said during prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. …

… This morning the Commons Public Accounts Committee accused the government of being “unacceptably complacent” after an investigation revealed as many as 9,100 people are sleeping rough on the streets of the UK every night.

More than 78,000 households, including over 120,000 children, are classed as homeless and housed in often substandard temporary accommodation.

According to evidence gathered by the cross-party committee, the average rough sleeper dies before the age of 50, and children in long-term temporary accommodation miss far more schooling than their peers.

Homelessness has been steadily rising since 2010, with the number of households in temporary accommodation skyrocketing by more than 60%.

Since March 2011, the number of people who sleep rough has risen by 134%. …”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-says-just-because-children-are-homeless-it-does-not-mean-they-are-living-on-the-street_uk_5a3a5b1fe4b0b0e5a79e872f

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Dec 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, AONB, Council tax, Inequality

“Second-home owners face 500% tax rise in the Yorkshire Dales”

“Second-home owners in the Yorkshire Dales could see council tax on their properties rise five-fold after a landmark vote.

Members of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority have backed an initiative designed to “halt and then reverse” the decline in numbers of young people in the region.

The move follows concern from residents that the number of second homes has contributed to younger people leaving the area, schools closing and a loss of services, thus creating “hollowed out communities”.

There are about 1,500 second homes in the Dales, representing more than 10 per cent of the total housing stock. Last night members of the park authority voted by 12 votes to nine in favour of working with local councils to develop a specific proposal on second homes.

A figure of at least five times the present rate of council tax has been mooted for second-home owners, equating to an annual tax bill of £8,500 for a band D property. The proposals would not apply to holiday lets.

The national park’s constituent local authorities will consider the proposals in the new year. If they all back the scheme a fully developed proposition to attract more young people and families will be put to central government.

Carl Lis, chairman of the park authority, said that the verdict “demonstrates that we are not prepared to sit idly by and watch Dales communities slow decline”.

He said that while unemployment in the national park “barely exists”, employers “cannot afford to pay the sort of wages you need to buy a home in the Dales” because their prices have been so inflated by the second-homes market.

“A lot of effort is going in to getting new affordable homes built, but it is being cancelled out by the number of homes going into second-home ownership. Any initiative to attract and retain families in the park which did not at least try to address the negative impacts of second homes would be like ignoring the elephant in the room.”

He added that he recognised that the proposals were controversial and that second-home owners did help to contribute to the local economy, but said that permanent residents would contribute much more.

Richard Foster, a member of the park authority and leader of Craven district council, went public with the second-homes proposal last month. He said: “I hope we might have pricked the social consciences of those who leave their properties in the Dales empty for most of the year, but our central concern is not about them, it is about the viability of local communities.”

Yvonne Peacock, another member of the park authority, said: “A few years ago there were 70 children on the roll of the school in Bainbridge where I live — now the number is 25. There are simply too many second homes.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Housing (local), Inequality

“Tenants lose out after landlord pressure halves UK home insulation cap”

“Tenants face missing out on energy bill savings after the government caved in to landlords’ demands by lowering a cap on the costs they face to upgrade Britain’s draughtiest homes.

Landlords must improve the energy efficiency of F- and G-rated homes from next April under new regulations designed to protect vulnerable tenants and cut carbon emissions.

But on Tuesday the government said the costs of the upgrade would be capped at £2,500, half what officials had originally told buy-to-let landlords to expect. The total energy bill savings is put at £337m.

The government’s own assessment warned that the lower cap means only 139,200 households in England and Wales will benefit from better insulation by April 2020. That is 121,000 fewer than if the cap was at £5,000.

Campaigners and industry groups said the change left ministers’ ambitions of tackling fuel poverty in tatters.

“This could leave a gaping hole in the government’s plans to meet its own fuel poverty targets,” said Richard Twinn, policy adviser at the UK Green Building Council.

The Association for Conservation of Energy said the government had “missed a big opportunity” to improve the efficiency of thousands of homes.

Officials said the lower cap was necessary to protect owners by ensuring “that landlords of F and G rated private rented properties are not faced with an excessive cost burden”.

The government also said the changes were necessary because landlords’ access to finance for energy-saving measures had become harder since the policy was first proposed.

One green energy charity accused Theresa May of putting landlords’ interests ahead of tenants. Max Wakefield, a campaigner at 10:10 Climate Action, said: “The prime minister claims to be prioritising controlling domestic energy costs, but in reality policy is being designed to suit landlords. …”

“Hundreds of thousands of renters will now be left wondering when, if ever, they can expect to live in a decent home.”

But the National Landlords Association was not happy either, calling the proposal a “complete farce”. It said there was a risk landlords who still could not afford the upgrades would leave properties empty and unimproved. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/19/tenants-lose-out-landlord-pressure-halves-uk-home-insulation-cap

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

Fat cats … lots of them … getting fatter

“Several of Britain’s best-known companies, including Burberry, Sky and Sports Direct, are included on a list ordered by the prime minister of firms rewarding bosses with “fat cat pay” and representing the “unacceptable face of capitalism”.

More than a fifth of Britain’s FTSE listed-firms are included on the “name and shame” register of companies that Theresa May said risk damaging “the social fabric of our country” by paying bosses too much money.

May ordered the creation of the world’s first public register of companies that ignored shareholder concerns and awarded “pay rises to bosses that far outstrip the company’s performance” in August. She said calling out the firms would help tackle the “abuses and excess in the boardroom” and restore public confidence in big business.

The public register was published on Tuesday by the Investment Association, a trade body of investment firms that manage the pensions of million of Britons.

The register lists every company in the FTSE All-Share Index which has suffered at least a 20% shareholder rebellion against proposals for executives pay, re-election of directors or other resolution at their shareholder meetings.

Companies on the register include fashion label Burberry, broadcaster Sky, retailer Sports Direct and Sir Martin Sorrell’s advertising company WPP.

Others on the list include banking giant HSBC, supermarket Morrisons, BT, estate agent Foxtons, the AA and Mothercare.

Chris Cummings, chief executive of the Investment Association, said the register “reveals the true scale of investor concern” and shows how many shareholders are “flexing their muscles by exercising their votes”.

Cummings said the fact that 22% of companies in the FTSE All-Share are included on the list shows that “a significant number of companies need to seriously start listening to shareholders views and acting on them”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/19/top-british-firms-named-and-shamed-on-pms-fat-cat-pay-list

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

An A and E consultant speaks … and begs for our help

“Dear Journalists,

As an A&E consultant I am writing to ask for your help.

Up and down the country our A&E departments are in meltdown, our staff are at breaking point and we need your help.

Patients are being left in corridors because there are no ward beds for them to go to, staff are leaving shifts demoralised and exhausted and most importantly our patients are not getting the care they deserve.

We need the public to know about this, not to scaremonger, but for the truth to be out there – as the only way to get politicans to change – is by voters knowing the reality and prioritising the NHS at the ballot box.

But without the public understanding what is going on, we will continue to have this crisis year after year after year. This is where we need your help. We need you to report the reality and not peddle the propaganda from our politicians.

The crisis is much worse than what you report. We all talk about the 4 hour target and that we get around 90%. But that includes all the patients who don’t need admission. But for the ones who need admission, the % who get admitted within 4 hours is so so so much lower than that. And for those patients, it is crucial for their well being, that they get admitted within four hours.

Why are you not asking for these figures? That would help reveal the truth.

Then you report 12 hour breaches. But in England (but not the rest of the UK) the clock starts ticking when a specialist senior has seen them. So they can be in A&E for 18 hours and not be a 12 hour breach.

Why are you not asking for the figures of patients who stay in A&E for more than 12 hours? That would help reveal the truth

And what about asking how many patients are spending time in corridors?

Because if you did reveal these figures – you would soon see the real extent of the crisis. And it is a crisis. One which will lead to a breaking point soon unless something changes.

The fault does not lie with the patients. Yes a few inappropriately attend – but they are not the problem; they can be quickly turned around and discharged.

The fault is not with the staff. They are working tirelessly and doing an amazing job despite the conditions they are working in.

The fault does not lie wth managers and hospital executives. They are working relentlessly to make things work as well as they can.

And despite what the governmnet peddle it certainly is not the fault of the GPs. Although there is falling numbers of GP surgeries, they are doing an amazing job at reducing the number of A&E attendances. Most importantly, the fault does not lie with the ‘system’ of the NHS – a model of care which utilities its resources to maximal effect.

The fault lies with the government.

Years of failed austerity depriving NHS and councils of vital monies and investment is taking its toll. A&Es are struggling because of the frail elderly who need a ward bed but cant get one.

They can’t get one because there are not enough beds within our hospitals (we have one of the smallest numbers of bed per capita in the whole of Europe) and because those that need to get out of hospital can’t because of a lack of social care.

In addition some money which has been spent on the NHS had been wasted on pointless reorganisations designed to start the process of NHS privatisation.

Please start reporting that. Please start reporting the truth. Please start reporting how close we are to melt down and please help get the public worked up about what is going on.

Because sadly our government don’t seem that bothered. They and their friends can afford private health care and therefore don’t rely on it. Even worse many would be happy to see our NHS privatised.

But for everyone else we need the NHS. The staff will battle on (and it is a battle at the moment). We will continue to do everything we can. We will continue to adapt, modernise and reform. We will continue to provide the most amazing possible care despite the conditions. But there is only so much our staff can take. And if we lose our staff we lose the NHS.

Journalists -we need your help. Please help.

And if you are not a journalist reading this, please share (publicly), or tweet it or send onto your friends in the hope that journalists will pick this up and start reporting the truth.

Rob Galloway A&E Consultant
@drrobgalloway

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Dec 2017

Posted under

Coastal communities, Housing (local), Inequality, Rural communities

No Devon or Cornwall area in top 50 places to live – and only one in Dorset

Only one area in the south-west: Purbeck, Dorset. None in Devon or Cornwall.

Red flag ,..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dentists-jeremy-hunts-constituency-refuse-11712710

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, DCC, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson

“Social care postcode gap widens for older people”: EDDC tries to claw back its mistakes too late

Last week, desperate Tories put a much-too-little! much-too-late motion to East Devon District Council:

“To ask the Leader of East Devon District Council to request Sarah Wollaston, Chair of the Parliamentary Health Select Committee, to investigate the effects on Rural Communities of the STP actions and to test if Rural Proofing Policies have been correctly applied to these decisions in order to protect these communities”

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/13/effect-of-sustainability-and-transformation-plans-on-rural-communities-east-devon-tories-miss-the-boat-then-moan-about-it/

As Owl noted at the time, this is somewhat rich, as their Leader, Paul Diviani, voted at Devon County Council AGAINST sending the document to the Secretary of State for Health (where this could have been highlighted in the covering submission) against the instructions of his EDDC Tory Councillors and never having consulted other Devon Tory councils he was supposed to represent. He was ably assisted in this by former EDDC Chairman Sarah Randall Johnson, who as Chair of the DCC committee, railroaded their choice of action by effectively silencing any opposition (EDW passim)

This led to the accelerated closure of community beds in Honiton and Seaton, following on from earlier closures in Axminster and Ottery St Mary.

A subsequent vote of “No Confidence” in Diviani at EDDC (brought by non-Tory councillors) was defeated by the very Tory councillors he had defied!

Now we read that “Social care postcode gap widens for older people” and that social care is breaking down in deprived areas – many of which are inevitably rural.

“… The knock-on effects for the NHS see elderly patients end up in hospital unnecessarily after accidents at home, while they cannot be discharged unless they have adequate community care in place. Among men, 30% in the poorest third of households needed help with an activity of daily living (ADL), compared with 14% in the highest income group. Among women, the need for such help was 30% among the poorest third and 20% in the highest third.

There is a growing army of unpaid helpers, such as family and friends, propping up the system. Around two-thirds of adults aged 65 and over, who had received help for daily activities in the past month, had only received this from unpaid helpers, the figures revealed.

Spending on adult social care by local authorities fell from £18.4bn in 2009-10 to just under £17bn in 2015-16, according to the respected King’s Fund. It represents a real-terms cut of 8%. It estimates there will be an estimated social care funding gap of £2.1bn by 2019-20.

While an extra £2bn was provided for social care over two years, a huge gap remains after the latest budget failed to address the issue. Theresa May was forced to abandon plans to ask the elderly to help pay for social care through the value of their homes, after it was blamed for contributing to her disastrous election result. The government has promised to bring forward some new proposals by the summer, but many Tory MPs and Conservative-run councils are desperate for faster action.

Ministers have dropped plans to put a cap on care costs by 2020 – a measure proposed by Sir Andrew Dilnot’s review of social care and backed by David Cameron when he was prime minister.

Izzi Seccombe, the Tory chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said: “Social care need is greater in more deprived areas and this, in turn, places those councils under significant financial pressures. Allowing councils to increase council tax to pay for social care, while helpful in some areas, is of limited use in poorer areas because their weaker tax base means they are less able to raise funds.

“In more deprived areas there is also likely to be a higher number of people who rely on councils to pay for their care. This, in turn, puts even more pressure on the local authority.

“If we are to bridge the inequality gap in social care, we need long-term sustainable funding for the sector. It was hugely disappointing that the chancellor found money for the NHS but nothing for adult social care in the autumn budget. We estimate adult social care faces an annual funding gap of £2.3bn by 2020.”

Simon Bottery, from the King’s Fund, said: “We know that need will be higher in the most deprived areas – people get ill earlier and have higher levels of disability, and carry that through into social care need.

“We also know that the councils that have the greater need to spend are, on average, raising less money through the precept [earmarked for funding social care].”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/16/social-care-for-elderly-postcode-gap-grows

“

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Dec 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Accountable Care Organisation, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Scrutiny, Transparency

Accountable Care Organisations: angels or devils?

Owl says: if you believe that Accountable Care Organisations are a good thing you will believe anything. Back-door privatisation a la USA and a ruthless way of enforcing rationing and post code lotteries rather than proper funding.

“Accountable care organisations have many strengths but should be openly debated before being implemented.

The war over the future of the NHS is being fought on multiple fronts. Campaigners, the Labour party, the government, NHS England and even Stephen Hawking are locked in combat over the structure, funding, transparency, accountability and legality of the current wave of reforms, along with the never-ending fight about privatisation – real or imagined.

The famous physicist has joined campaigners in a high court bid to block the introduction of accountable care organisations to oversee local services without primary legislation, arguing they could lead to privatisation, rationing and charging.

Meanwhile, the shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, has tabled a Commons early day motion after the government announced plans to amend regulations to support the operation of accountable care organisations. Ashworth argues that they are a profound change to the NHS that should be debated in parliament.

Accountable care – a term imported from the US, where it plays a key role in Obamacare – can take many forms, but it typically involves an alliance of providers with a fixed budget collaborating to manage the health needs of their local population. NHS England wants to see sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) evolving into accountable care systems in which integrated care supports good physical and mental health.

In June, NHS England announced that eight areas would be leading the accountable care drive. Greater Manchester is also adopting this approach, and many others are starting to use the accountable care language.

Accountable care has the potential to address many of the criticisms the most vociferous supporters of the NHS have made for many years. It goes a long way to replace competition with collaboration, and the NHS England chief executive, Simon Stevens, said it could mark the end of the infamous purchaser/provider split, which weighs down the health service with costly and often pointless bureaucracy.

Locally led, integrated systems are essential if we are going to shift the NHS from a 1970s-style hospital service to one that provides a community-based health and wellbeing service. Pooling budgets across the local area is not a ruse to disguise cuts. It is the most effective way to manage public money, irrespective of the level of funding.

The court case confuses the issue of how the NHS is organised with its funding and the role of the private sector. These are three different issues.

But the legal basis for accountable care is shaky. Faced with the wreckage left by Andrew Lansley’s infamous 2012 reforms, NHS England introduced STPs because trying to plan services through more than 200 clinical commissioning groups was never going to work.

As demand climbed, funding flatlined in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and managing long-term conditions became the dominant challenge; it was imperative to move from competition to collaboration and set a long-term goal of population health management. That is where accountable care comes in.

STPs and accountable care are operating under legislation meant for clinical commissioning groups – so collaborative systems typically serving 1.2 million people in which local government and all parts of the NHS have a say are underpinned by a legal framework for GP-managed competition overseeing populations of 250,000.

This is such a precarious legal balancing act that the 2017 Conservative manifesto promised to tidy up the legislation and regulations. But introducing an NHS bill now would be political harakiri for Theresa May, and most health service staff would prefer legal ambiguity to yet another round of organisational upheaval that would inevitably follow legislation.

So the choice is to either continue to find legal bodges to allow the NHS to collaborate and plan or – if the high court challenge succeeds – to return to the Lansley dream-turned-nightmare of full-blooded competition.

But although the thinking behind the legal challenge is muddled, that campaign and Labour’s early day motion highlight the major problem: a profound change in the management and leadership of the NHS is being introduced without informed public and parliamentary discussion.

The new approach has many strengths, but introducing it under the radar only serves to feed anxieties and misconceptions about the objective. NHS England needs to get the discussion about accountable care out in the open.”

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/dec/15/under-radar-nhs-reforms-fuelling-public-anxiety