Skip to main content

Some Sanity at last

The decision of the Government to accept Birmingham's proposal to merge only Eastern and North Birmingham PCTs is a glimmer of sensible decisionmaking amidst a fog of incompetence.

It will be an interesting test case to see if consequentially we cope better with the financial problems currently facing the Health Service. The government today were still only talking about Period 6 figures. That is not that surprising as they can adjust the end of year figures in all sorts of interesting ways that will be difficult to bottom out. They then can announce end of year figures that are better than period 9 as a result of "brokerage" where the SHA chucks a bung at a trust in deficit on a one-off basis.

Yesterday and Today involves further discussion of the Report Stage of the Parliamentary Scrutiny (Abolition) Bill. It is clear, listening to the debate, that the government do not follow the complex legal arguments today.

Today I also managed to meet up with people from CSCI and the College of Paediatricians. I have argued that:
a) The family court process should be open to scrutiny on a reasonable basis
b) Other aspects of Social Care procedures should be open to more scrutiny with a right for participants to raise concerns in confidence with politicians. The parties should be allowed further discretion.
c) There should be a parents advocate during Child Protection proceedings as a matter of course.
d) The "Independent Chair" of Child Protection proceedings should be truly independent.

We also had a short meeting about the West Midlands City Region which is moving forwards. This is a workable system for bringing better coordination across the metropolitan area (inc Coventry and Telford).

It was also interesting in the Finance Bill Standing Committee (A) that the government really don't understand the issue about first year capital allowances for Small Businesses. If a Small Business makes an extra profit of say £25,000 and invests that in capital equipment for the business they still have to pay tax on the profit even though they have spent the money.

This is same for larger businesses, but the cash flow issues tend to not be as problematical.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
"The decision of the Government to accept Birmingham's proposal..."

What exactly do you mean by "Birmingham's proposal". It was an option put forward for consultation by the Strategic Health Authority. In fact, it was THEIR recommended option. It was supported as an option by virtually everyone in the consultation. How does that become, somehow, "Birmingham's proposal"?
john said…
It started with the PCTs in Birmingham. Hence it is a proposal from Birmingham. Admittedly supported by an SHA that also covers the Black Country. It was, however, Birmingham's proposal. It was not specifically a proposal from the City Council although supported by the Council.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…