I’m writing this blog post as my fortnightly article for next week’s Oswestry and Borders Chronicle. Has to be done for first thing, Monday morning. So it’s style is rather more ‘article’ than ‘blog post’. Here goes.
So much is being written about the process by which the UK is leaving the European Union, that it’s difficult to know what’s actually happening. Or to “see the wood for the trees”. Or to “separate the wheat from the chaff”. Choose your own phrase. But for me, the process of withdrawal is proceeding much as I would have expected it to - in a most unsatisfactory way.
Let us look back. The decision of the British people to leave the EU on 23rd June 2016 came as a surprise to most, including me. In particular, it came as a huge shock to the Prime Minister of the time, David Cameron who resigned the following morning.
After much heart searching, I had voted Leave in the referendum, but I always realised that leaving would lead to years of disruption and uncertainty. I’ve not changed my assessment of what we face. We don’t know, but suspect that little or no preparation work had been done in preparation for a Leave vote. Quite rightly, new Prime Minister, Theresa May has taken the process forward with caution and care - refusing to be rushed. Fortunately a cautious approach is her personal style of government. Mine too.
The main reason why the process of leaving is so difficult for the Prime Minister and David Davis, her Brexit Secretary of State is that the EU is making it as difficult as possible for the UK to carry our it’s instruction from the 17.4 million voters of the UK to leave. Those involved in negotiating on behalf of the EU are behaving like haughty bullies. We saw the same attitude towards Greece over recent years, and we see it towards Catalonia at present. The British people will not be so easily bullied. The response of many of my constituents when we discuss this issue is to be more determined to Leave. The sheer arrogance, haughtiness and intrangigence has given much more impetus to a ‘No Deal’ option.
The UK wants a sensible ‘deal’ which benefits the EU and the UK. I suspect the EU puppet masters are becoming aware that the UK people's attitude is hardening. The UK Govt wants a mutually beneficial deal, but more work is now being done on ‘No Deal’. It should be. We should not continue with the childish game of posturing that is a feature of negotiations so far for much longer. The world outside of the EU is a big place, where there is a lot of potential for trade deals. It’s reaching time for constructive negotiation or leaving the table. I’ve always been one to turn my back on bullies.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
All I can say on Powys Children’s Services Report.
Not often I refuse to do Media interviews, but I did so today when invited to comment on the report from the Children’s and Social Care Inspectorate in Wales about Children’s Services at Powys County Council. When the Report was published recently, I did agree to interviews. On balance I think it was an unwise decision. I said that I was not surprised by the critical content of the Report. I also said that I had known there was a problem for at least two years, but was not in a position to comment on any of the issues raised with me by constituents. Had a team meeting in my office this morning, and decided ‘No Interviews’. Also decided to write this blog making public all that I consider appropriate. Crucial that constituents have confidence that what they say to me remains confidential.
Here’s all I’m prepared to say. I was first approached by a constituent over three years ago (not two). Other contacts followed. Despite Children’s Services being a devolved issue, with responsibility vested in the County Council, I decided my case worker should follow up in response. At that stage I had no idea that it would snowball. Over the next 18 months, I wrote 15 letters to a variety of Council officers and councillors. During late 2016, I became increasingly concerned and escalated my concern by arranging a more formal meeting in my office with the Cabinet Member responsible for Children’s Services, outlining some details on a confidential basis. I and my case worker were becoming seriously concerned. The police had been involved, as had an English authority, which we contacted. My impression was that my intervention and the Cabinet Member’s Positive response had “shaken things up”. But after some time, it became clear that the issues had not been resolved. My office remains in contact and more letters have followed, and I continue to have serious concerns about delays. Bearing all this in mind, I don’t think it unreasonable to say that I am not surprised by the content of the CSSIW Report.
While I am not prepared to say any more about the cases I’m involved with, my team have agreed that we would be prepared to allow the head of any inquiry to have sight of my case worker’s file, which has a comprehensive record of every meeting and written contact with the Council. I would also be prepared to share sight of the case notes with the new Chair of Powys County Council, who has handled the response to the Report very well. For the first time in years, I have confidence that the Council’s Leader and Cabinet are taking the concerns that I (and perhaps others) have had for a long time.
And that’s about it. That’s all I’m making public. I don’t know what instigated the CSSIW investigation. It may that my agitation may have had some influence. I would be pleased if it had. I just hope, for the sake of children at risk, that steps are put in place to carry out Children’s Services properly.
Here’s all I’m prepared to say. I was first approached by a constituent over three years ago (not two). Other contacts followed. Despite Children’s Services being a devolved issue, with responsibility vested in the County Council, I decided my case worker should follow up in response. At that stage I had no idea that it would snowball. Over the next 18 months, I wrote 15 letters to a variety of Council officers and councillors. During late 2016, I became increasingly concerned and escalated my concern by arranging a more formal meeting in my office with the Cabinet Member responsible for Children’s Services, outlining some details on a confidential basis. I and my case worker were becoming seriously concerned. The police had been involved, as had an English authority, which we contacted. My impression was that my intervention and the Cabinet Member’s Positive response had “shaken things up”. But after some time, it became clear that the issues had not been resolved. My office remains in contact and more letters have followed, and I continue to have serious concerns about delays. Bearing all this in mind, I don’t think it unreasonable to say that I am not surprised by the content of the CSSIW Report.
While I am not prepared to say any more about the cases I’m involved with, my team have agreed that we would be prepared to allow the head of any inquiry to have sight of my case worker’s file, which has a comprehensive record of every meeting and written contact with the Council. I would also be prepared to share sight of the case notes with the new Chair of Powys County Council, who has handled the response to the Report very well. For the first time in years, I have confidence that the Council’s Leader and Cabinet are taking the concerns that I (and perhaps others) have had for a long time.
And that’s about it. That’s all I’m making public. I don’t know what instigated the CSSIW investigation. It may that my agitation may have had some influence. I would be pleased if it had. I just hope, for the sake of children at risk, that steps are put in place to carry out Children’s Services properly.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Failure in Powys Children’s Services.
About two years ago a constituent called my office, concerned about the safety of a child, and dissatisfaction with the response of Powys Council’s Children’s Servics Department. I cannot communicate any information about the case. It’s a fundamental principle that any constituent (or non constituent) can be assured of total confidentiality when they speak to me. That’s one reason why I often ignore questions of Facebook. At the time, I asked one of my caseworkers to take a close look at the case. I was disturbed by what I was told, and raised the issue with Powys County Council, at both an officer and political level.
The Council response was very disappointing. Actually it was worse than that. I thought there was an almost total lack of recognition of the seriousness of the case. I try never to let my work get to me. I see so much awfulness in the world. Every MP does. I’d never sleep. But that single case caused me real worry and sleeplessness. I felt the safety of a very young child was at serious risk. I made contact with another English Council which had an involvement. And escalated my contact with the Council to the highest level I reasonably could. I was not prepared to make anything public, and I’m still not naming names - in public anyway. The confidentiality factor is too important to my work. But I needed to be certain I had done what I could, explaining to the Council that I could not let this matter be brushed under the carpet. I knew about it, was not prepared to be complicit, and was not prepared to let it go.
I do not know whether my involvement has had an impact on the report into the failings of Powys Council’s Children’s Services Department. I would be very pleased if it had. I had hoped for a briefing on the report last Friday, before it was published. But it was cancelled. Bearing in mind all the above, I was not one bit surprised by the Report’s findings. As always, I suspect my experience is only the merest tip of what has been happening. The truth will out.
We have seen only the first chapter of this scandal. And scandal it is. We’re told the police are now involved due to falsification of documents. I would be surprised if a whole lot more does not emerge. I will have to share my experiences with anyone appointed to look in detail at what has happened. But there is one spark of optimism within this dark place. I have been encouraged by the response of the new Council Leader, Rosemarie Harris. For the first time in two years I have some confidence that the Council acknowledges the horrific scale of what has happened. That is an important first step on the road to putting things right. I’m not interested in a witch hunt, even though there may be some holding to account. I just want a proper service put in place. It’s going to take a long time, and need a lot of work before we can feel confident that Powys County Council is able to deliver acceptable Children’s Services for the county of Powys.
The Council response was very disappointing. Actually it was worse than that. I thought there was an almost total lack of recognition of the seriousness of the case. I try never to let my work get to me. I see so much awfulness in the world. Every MP does. I’d never sleep. But that single case caused me real worry and sleeplessness. I felt the safety of a very young child was at serious risk. I made contact with another English Council which had an involvement. And escalated my contact with the Council to the highest level I reasonably could. I was not prepared to make anything public, and I’m still not naming names - in public anyway. The confidentiality factor is too important to my work. But I needed to be certain I had done what I could, explaining to the Council that I could not let this matter be brushed under the carpet. I knew about it, was not prepared to be complicit, and was not prepared to let it go.
I do not know whether my involvement has had an impact on the report into the failings of Powys Council’s Children’s Services Department. I would be very pleased if it had. I had hoped for a briefing on the report last Friday, before it was published. But it was cancelled. Bearing in mind all the above, I was not one bit surprised by the Report’s findings. As always, I suspect my experience is only the merest tip of what has been happening. The truth will out.
We have seen only the first chapter of this scandal. And scandal it is. We’re told the police are now involved due to falsification of documents. I would be surprised if a whole lot more does not emerge. I will have to share my experiences with anyone appointed to look in detail at what has happened. But there is one spark of optimism within this dark place. I have been encouraged by the response of the new Council Leader, Rosemarie Harris. For the first time in two years I have some confidence that the Council acknowledges the horrific scale of what has happened. That is an important first step on the road to putting things right. I’m not interested in a witch hunt, even though there may be some holding to account. I just want a proper service put in place. It’s going to take a long time, and need a lot of work before we can feel confident that Powys County Council is able to deliver acceptable Children’s Services for the county of Powys.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Constituency Boundaries and Rural Democracy.
Don’t suppose I’m in Govt’s ‘good books’ today, after my response to the latest proposals to review constituency boundaries. My view is only on what is proposed for Wales. BBC Wales are reporting my view that I consider the proposals for Wales to be “crackers”and damaging to democracy in Rural Wales in particular. While today’s revised proposals are the handiwork of the Boundary Commission, I do not criticise the commissioners. They have no choice but recommend within the constraints of Govt legislation and the Welsh National boundary. which afford little room for rational consideration or freedom to take history, culture and geography into account.
Now I do accept that there is a case for some equalisation of constituency sizes. In fact, a review is long overdue. I just don’t think it’s sensible or rational to review on the basis of 600 constituencies rather that the current 650. Especially at a time when numbers in the House of Lords continue to rise into the 800s! Also, I concede that I cannot reasonably argue that the number of Welsh MPs should remain at 40 when the same constituency size as currently exists in England would result in 33 Welsh MPs. There should be two changes to the legislation. Firstly, the reduction should be from 40 to 33 (not 29) to reflect average size of constituencies across the UK. And the ‘tolerance’ between number of electors per constituency should be more than 5%. (8% perhaps). If we’re asking Boundary Commissioners to agree new boundaries, let’s give them the power to make recommendations as sensible and sensitive as possible.
Dare say some might suggest I’m being difficult or unreasonable. Well, let’s look at things from where I’m standing - which is in the ancient constituency of Montgomeryshire. Montgomeryshire has existed as a constitutional entity for around 500 yrs. I’ve been involved in public life for over 40 yrs, and have always represented Montgomeryshire (Council, Welsh Assembly and Parliament). Have fought elections as “The Montgomeryshire Man”. I still use Montgomeryshire as my address, despite it officially being Powys. The current proposals consign historic Montgomeryshire to the dustbin of history, carving it up into three to make up the numbers in surrounding constituencies. What am I supposed to think.
Of course Bethan asked me if I intended to vote against the proposals when they come forward at the end of 2018. I declined to answer. I want to argue my corner over this with Government. If I say now that I’m voting against, I lose all influence on the debate. It’s what happens. Ok, it would win some favourable publicity, ensuring I make headlines rather than maybe make a difference. But what I have said is that if these proposals are adopted, I will not stand for Parliament again.
Dare say some might suggest I’m being difficult or unreasonable. Well, let’s look at things from where I’m standing - which is in the ancient constituency of Montgomeryshire. Montgomeryshire has existed as a constitutional entity for around 500 yrs. I’ve been involved in public life for over 40 yrs, and have always represented Montgomeryshire (Council, Welsh Assembly and Parliament). Have fought elections as “The Montgomeryshire Man”. I still use Montgomeryshire as my address, despite it officially being Powys. The current proposals consign historic Montgomeryshire to the dustbin of history, carving it up into three to make up the numbers in surrounding constituencies. What am I supposed to think.
Of course Bethan asked me if I intended to vote against the proposals when they come forward at the end of 2018. I declined to answer. I want to argue my corner over this with Government. If I say now that I’m voting against, I lose all influence on the debate. It’s what happens. Ok, it would win some favourable publicity, ensuring I make headlines rather than maybe make a difference. But what I have said is that if these proposals are adopted, I will not stand for Parliament again.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Follow up on Brexit radio chat this morning.
It’s difficult to know what to expect when entering into the Lion’s Den that is the Sunday Supplement studio with Vaughan Roderick. Especially when the subject under debate is Brexit. I realised The inevitability of being asked which way I’d vote if the EU Referendum was held again. But there are so many other strands blowing in the winds of uncertainty.
The two strands that Nia Griffiths, Labour Shadow Defence Minister and I talked with Vaughan about this morning were the transition/implementation period after March 2019 and our approach during it to the leaving of the Single Market and the Customs Union. We will be formally leaving all of them in March 19. There are some who refer to this as “The hardest of Brexits”, which I do think is utter nonsense. My hope is that the UK will agree that our relationship with the EU during the transition/implementation period will match as closely as possible current arrangements - where this benefits both sides. Must admit I’m not personally that bothered about the two year limit, as long as it’s not just a tactical delaying tactic.
Vaughan quite rightly brought up impact on Welsh sheep farming. We knew before Referendum day that the tariff on lamb could theoretically be a massive 40% if we have no agreed deal and have to fall back on WTO rules. That is a ‘worst case scenario’ and of course it inevitably means some uncertainty. It would also require some highly stupid and perverse decision (or non decision) making. I’m a lot more optimistic. But I do accept the possibility of perverse stupidity, so am keen to promote diversification. A good long term strategy whatever happens. It’s already happening.
Which brings us to what is a sensible approach to the ‘No Deal’ question. And here I do think the opposition position is bizarre. I watched Labour’s main spokesman on this issue, Kier Starmer on the Sunday Politics today. Sounded like a man who has never done any sort of deal in his life. Only a fool enters a negotiation, informing everyone that whatever deal is reached, it will be/must be accepted. Like me in a former life, walking into the John Deere sale room, waving my chequebook around and informing the salesman I’m buying no matter what the price. It’s an attitude quarenteed to deliver a very bad deal. We all want a good deal for the UK and a good deal for the EU. Thank goodness Mr Starmer isn’t sitting at the negotiating table.
Anyway, that was about it. I was expecting this morning to be about how we manage powers reserved to the EU in devolved subject areas, and the wide use of Henry VIII powers. Now that would have been much more difficult for me to cope with!!
The two strands that Nia Griffiths, Labour Shadow Defence Minister and I talked with Vaughan about this morning were the transition/implementation period after March 2019 and our approach during it to the leaving of the Single Market and the Customs Union. We will be formally leaving all of them in March 19. There are some who refer to this as “The hardest of Brexits”, which I do think is utter nonsense. My hope is that the UK will agree that our relationship with the EU during the transition/implementation period will match as closely as possible current arrangements - where this benefits both sides. Must admit I’m not personally that bothered about the two year limit, as long as it’s not just a tactical delaying tactic.
Vaughan quite rightly brought up impact on Welsh sheep farming. We knew before Referendum day that the tariff on lamb could theoretically be a massive 40% if we have no agreed deal and have to fall back on WTO rules. That is a ‘worst case scenario’ and of course it inevitably means some uncertainty. It would also require some highly stupid and perverse decision (or non decision) making. I’m a lot more optimistic. But I do accept the possibility of perverse stupidity, so am keen to promote diversification. A good long term strategy whatever happens. It’s already happening.
Which brings us to what is a sensible approach to the ‘No Deal’ question. And here I do think the opposition position is bizarre. I watched Labour’s main spokesman on this issue, Kier Starmer on the Sunday Politics today. Sounded like a man who has never done any sort of deal in his life. Only a fool enters a negotiation, informing everyone that whatever deal is reached, it will be/must be accepted. Like me in a former life, walking into the John Deere sale room, waving my chequebook around and informing the salesman I’m buying no matter what the price. It’s an attitude quarenteed to deliver a very bad deal. We all want a good deal for the UK and a good deal for the EU. Thank goodness Mr Starmer isn’t sitting at the negotiating table.
Anyway, that was about it. I was expecting this morning to be about how we manage powers reserved to the EU in devolved subject areas, and the wide use of Henry VIII powers. Now that would have been much more difficult for me to cope with!!
Friday, October 13, 2017
More chat about Brexit.
It may not be a wise decision but I’ve agreed to appear on Sunday Supplement this week to discuss Brexit. In current climate, my ambition will be not to commit a ‘gaffe’. And that will not be easy because even the slightest grammatical error is treated as a ‘gaffe’ when the subject of Brexit is under discussion. And Vaughan Roderick is a crafty interviewer.
First question is bound to be ‘Which way would you vote if the referendum were to be re-run today.? The obvious answer should be the one the Prime Minister gave. It’s not going to be re-run and we are leaving the EU in March 2019, so don’t ask such a pointless hypothetical question. But when I’ve been asked over recent days, I’ve replied “I’d vote same as June 2016”. I’d vote Leave, with the same degree of uncertainty as I did last time. I find the question no easier to answer today, even though the blood curdling nonsense churned out by the Treasury before the EU referendum has been shown up as the ludicrous scare stories without foundation that we thought it was. But reality is we still face uncertainty, and will continue to do so for a good while yet.
I might be asked if I support a ‘Hard Brexit’ or a ‘Soft Brexit’. I really do not know what these terms mean. They are bandied about by people as if they are clearly defined terms. They are not. They are just some sort of code, which I don’t fully grasp. I am in favour of the UK leaving the EU, including the Single Market and the Customs Union. Anything else is not Brexit. Call that response what you will. I see leaving the EU simply as ‘Brexit’.
And then we have the issue of whether the UK Government should prepare for ‘no deal’. Of course we should. I’ve never gone into any negotiation without retaining the option of ‘no deal’. And I fully expect the EU to be preparing for ‘no deal’ as well. Not having that option on or near the negotiating table almost guarantees a bad deal. Most people want a good deal for the UK, and a good deal for the EU. But it’s seemed to me all along that the conditions imposed on the negotiations by the EU at the start almost guarantee ‘no deal’. That is a dreadful pity - both damaging and unwise. But if that’s the way it is, so be it. And I’m not sure we should waste much more time dancing to an unacceptable Juncker/Barnier tune on this. The one individual whose behaviour promotes ‘no deal’ above all others is Juncker. I hope there are no gaffes in that!
First question is bound to be ‘Which way would you vote if the referendum were to be re-run today.? The obvious answer should be the one the Prime Minister gave. It’s not going to be re-run and we are leaving the EU in March 2019, so don’t ask such a pointless hypothetical question. But when I’ve been asked over recent days, I’ve replied “I’d vote same as June 2016”. I’d vote Leave, with the same degree of uncertainty as I did last time. I find the question no easier to answer today, even though the blood curdling nonsense churned out by the Treasury before the EU referendum has been shown up as the ludicrous scare stories without foundation that we thought it was. But reality is we still face uncertainty, and will continue to do so for a good while yet.
I might be asked if I support a ‘Hard Brexit’ or a ‘Soft Brexit’. I really do not know what these terms mean. They are bandied about by people as if they are clearly defined terms. They are not. They are just some sort of code, which I don’t fully grasp. I am in favour of the UK leaving the EU, including the Single Market and the Customs Union. Anything else is not Brexit. Call that response what you will. I see leaving the EU simply as ‘Brexit’.
And then we have the issue of whether the UK Government should prepare for ‘no deal’. Of course we should. I’ve never gone into any negotiation without retaining the option of ‘no deal’. And I fully expect the EU to be preparing for ‘no deal’ as well. Not having that option on or near the negotiating table almost guarantees a bad deal. Most people want a good deal for the UK, and a good deal for the EU. But it’s seemed to me all along that the conditions imposed on the negotiations by the EU at the start almost guarantee ‘no deal’. That is a dreadful pity - both damaging and unwise. But if that’s the way it is, so be it. And I’m not sure we should waste much more time dancing to an unacceptable Juncker/Barnier tune on this. The one individual whose behaviour promotes ‘no deal’ above all others is Juncker. I hope there are no gaffes in that!
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Paying for Domiciliary Care
On Monday morning this week, I ‘launched’ a social care conference, arranged by TLC, a local service delivery company, at Llanidloes. I think it was rather grandly described as a ‘Keynote Speech’. I refer to this only because my main message was much the same as that heading up today’s front page in the Telegraph. My contention was that Domiciliary Care ‘service users’, (those who can afford to that is) must pay more for their care. It’s what the Social Care Minister, Jackie Doyle-Price is reported to have said at a fringe meeting at the recent Conservative Party Conference. Hope I’m supporting the Minister’s and the Government’s emerging policy on this issue. I’ll summarise the thrust of my speech.
I began by acknowledging that paying for social care is both a complex and controversial issue. It’s arguable that a Conservative attempt to tackle the issue in June’s manifesto contributed to a more disappointing election result than I hoped for. The description of the policy as a ‘Dementia Tax’ was an utter disgrace - repeated in today’s Telegraph. The Telegraph, and every other media outlet that does the same should be ashamed of themselves. It’s a policy area that is in desperate need of reform. It is deeply unfair is several ways. The people who pay for this failure to tackle a very thorny issue are the frail elderly, whose voice is not heard as much as it should be in today’s society.
Firstly, let’s consider the difference between how residential care and domicilliary care are treated. Those who need care pay for residential care, until the value of their assets fall to a certain level. Those who are deemed to qualify for domiciliary care don’t. Not only is this unfair, but it distorts decision making amongst families. And we know that assets are sometimes transferred in cases where the need for care can by anticipated.
Secondly, in the absence of magic money trees, domiciliary care is paid for by taxpayers, often much less wealthy. It simply seems wrong to me that young families, struggling financially to bring up children have to support people far wealthier receive care.
I agreed with the Conservative manifesto proposal (after it was amended to include a ‘cap’ on the total paid. It was payable by ‘service users’ who were worth more than £100,000. In my view the ‘cap’ on total payments should be less than £100,000. And payment should be deferred until after the used dies.
I know this is not likely to be a popular viewpoint. But as I’ve grown older, I think it’s more important to be right, responsible and fair that it is to be ‘popular’. The second key message of my speech on Monday was that as new policy is developed (which it will have to be) it should developed in partnership with representatives of those who use the services and those who deliver the care. This is not an issue that can be left, simply because it’s difficult. And there are commentators who will do their utmost to make it an impossible to tackle it.
I began by acknowledging that paying for social care is both a complex and controversial issue. It’s arguable that a Conservative attempt to tackle the issue in June’s manifesto contributed to a more disappointing election result than I hoped for. The description of the policy as a ‘Dementia Tax’ was an utter disgrace - repeated in today’s Telegraph. The Telegraph, and every other media outlet that does the same should be ashamed of themselves. It’s a policy area that is in desperate need of reform. It is deeply unfair is several ways. The people who pay for this failure to tackle a very thorny issue are the frail elderly, whose voice is not heard as much as it should be in today’s society.
Firstly, let’s consider the difference between how residential care and domicilliary care are treated. Those who need care pay for residential care, until the value of their assets fall to a certain level. Those who are deemed to qualify for domiciliary care don’t. Not only is this unfair, but it distorts decision making amongst families. And we know that assets are sometimes transferred in cases where the need for care can by anticipated.
Secondly, in the absence of magic money trees, domiciliary care is paid for by taxpayers, often much less wealthy. It simply seems wrong to me that young families, struggling financially to bring up children have to support people far wealthier receive care.
I agreed with the Conservative manifesto proposal (after it was amended to include a ‘cap’ on the total paid. It was payable by ‘service users’ who were worth more than £100,000. In my view the ‘cap’ on total payments should be less than £100,000. And payment should be deferred until after the used dies.
I know this is not likely to be a popular viewpoint. But as I’ve grown older, I think it’s more important to be right, responsible and fair that it is to be ‘popular’. The second key message of my speech on Monday was that as new policy is developed (which it will have to be) it should developed in partnership with representatives of those who use the services and those who deliver the care. This is not an issue that can be left, simply because it’s difficult. And there are commentators who will do their utmost to make it an impossible to tackle it.
Sunday, October 08, 2017
Public Consultation on Shropshire NHS Reform.
I’ve known for about 40 years that the populations of Shropshire and Mid Wales cannot sustain two large District General Hospitals in the long term. 40 yrs ago, an old ld squash friend of mine, Dr Paul Brown (who was also a top consultant in Shropshire) explained why very clearly. He was far seeing and absolutely right. Tragically Paul died young. Today there is a Paul Brown Department at the Princess Royal in Telford.
I’ve been closely involved in the discussion about structural reform of the major hospitals serving Shropshire and Mid Wales for about 20 years. While it would have been best to build a new hospital on a green field site to replace the two hospitals currently located at Telford and Shrewsbury, it has proved to be too costly - about £600 million. So the only way practical forward is to merge the Royal Shrewsbury and the Princess Royal, running them as one hospital, but on two sites. The two Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) serving Shropshire, who decide on future structure agreed this a few years ago and set up a body known as the ‘Future Fit Programme Board’ to consider the matter in detail and make a recommendation on the way forward. After investing more than 3yrs and £2million it finally agreed (after much angst) to recommend that ‘emergency care services’ should be located at Shrewsbury and ‘Planned Care’ should be located at Telford. In the end, following much argument, it was a unanimous recommendation by both CCGs. The public meeting where it was decided was noisy and angry. This ‘preferred option’ includes the transfer of the most serious cases of maternity trauma from Telford to Shrewsbury as well.
In order for this ‘preferred option’ to proceed, the UK Government (NHS England) has to agree the budget needed for the capital works - about £200 million. I expect this to be agreed. There also has to be a public consultation, the details of which we do not yet know. What I expect is that it will be of 14 weeks duration, beginning sometime in November. The statutory requirement is that it be of 12 weeks. Also, we don’t know how many options will be put before the public. It will probably be 2, but could be 3. But the key factor is that there will be a ‘preferred option’ - which is that Emergency Care should be located at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. This is very important to Mid Wales. It’s been a long and tough battle.
It would be easy to think that since there is now a ‘preferred option’ that the debate is all over. Such an attitude would be a serious mistake. It’s vital that the people of Mid Wales respond to the public consultation by making their opinions known. When we know the precise date when the consultation period begins, and the precise options before us also I hope thousands of Montgomeryshire residents will respond. It will be vital that we all write individual letters.
Reform of the secondary care system which serves Shropshire and much of Mid Wales, including most of Montgomeryshire, is perhaps the most dominating issue throughout my years as an Assembly Member and Member of Parliament. It has certainly been the most important issue for my constituents. Over the 12 or 14 weeks of the public consultation, I will be holding one or two meetings every week throughout the constituency, where there will 2/3 of us present to help with letter writing etc. The County Times has assured me that it will help publicise this campaign. We need to make sure that there is no complacency or distraction from our objective, which is to have our new ‘Emergency Care Centre’ built at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.
I’ve been closely involved in the discussion about structural reform of the major hospitals serving Shropshire and Mid Wales for about 20 years. While it would have been best to build a new hospital on a green field site to replace the two hospitals currently located at Telford and Shrewsbury, it has proved to be too costly - about £600 million. So the only way practical forward is to merge the Royal Shrewsbury and the Princess Royal, running them as one hospital, but on two sites. The two Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) serving Shropshire, who decide on future structure agreed this a few years ago and set up a body known as the ‘Future Fit Programme Board’ to consider the matter in detail and make a recommendation on the way forward. After investing more than 3yrs and £2million it finally agreed (after much angst) to recommend that ‘emergency care services’ should be located at Shrewsbury and ‘Planned Care’ should be located at Telford. In the end, following much argument, it was a unanimous recommendation by both CCGs. The public meeting where it was decided was noisy and angry. This ‘preferred option’ includes the transfer of the most serious cases of maternity trauma from Telford to Shrewsbury as well.
In order for this ‘preferred option’ to proceed, the UK Government (NHS England) has to agree the budget needed for the capital works - about £200 million. I expect this to be agreed. There also has to be a public consultation, the details of which we do not yet know. What I expect is that it will be of 14 weeks duration, beginning sometime in November. The statutory requirement is that it be of 12 weeks. Also, we don’t know how many options will be put before the public. It will probably be 2, but could be 3. But the key factor is that there will be a ‘preferred option’ - which is that Emergency Care should be located at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. This is very important to Mid Wales. It’s been a long and tough battle.
It would be easy to think that since there is now a ‘preferred option’ that the debate is all over. Such an attitude would be a serious mistake. It’s vital that the people of Mid Wales respond to the public consultation by making their opinions known. When we know the precise date when the consultation period begins, and the precise options before us also I hope thousands of Montgomeryshire residents will respond. It will be vital that we all write individual letters.
Reform of the secondary care system which serves Shropshire and much of Mid Wales, including most of Montgomeryshire, is perhaps the most dominating issue throughout my years as an Assembly Member and Member of Parliament. It has certainly been the most important issue for my constituents. Over the 12 or 14 weeks of the public consultation, I will be holding one or two meetings every week throughout the constituency, where there will 2/3 of us present to help with letter writing etc. The County Times has assured me that it will help publicise this campaign. We need to make sure that there is no complacency or distraction from our objective, which is to have our new ‘Emergency Care Centre’ built at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.
Saturday, October 07, 2017
Presumed Consent. Triumph of Idealogy over Evidence.
As long as I can remember, I have been enthusiastic about organ donation. Carried a donor card, but much more importantly have told next of kin of my wishes. Been involved in campaigns, and met up with Specialist Nurses (SNODS) to discuss how we can increase donation levels. But I have always been an implacable opponent of presumed consent. I simply do not consider it right that the state should take the organs of the dead, without the expressed approval of the dead or a family member taking the decision on behalf of the dead. And it doesn’t deliver more organs for donation.
Unfortunately, whenever this issue is under discussion, I have to repeat that I support Organ Donation. I also have to repeat that my opposition is not based of faith or religion, but on efficacy. It does not work. I now refuse to do media interviews. What happens is that someone needing a transplant informs the listener that an organ is needed to save his or her life - and then I’m asked why I disagree. I politely make clear that I don’t disagree. The follow up question (totally ignoring what I’ve just said) is usually asking how I can support religion blocking the saving of a life. I politely point out that my views have nothing to do with religion, but are based on there being no evidence that presumed consent will improve donation levels, and may well lead to the opposite. My experience confirms that there are none so deaf as those who will not listen.
There are three ways in which we can increase organ donation. Firstly promote ‘opting in’. Donor cards are useful but most effective way by a country mile is to tell next of kin. Secondly, increase number of Specialist Nurses (SNODS) who are trained to talk with next of kin when they are coping with the pain of a loved one’s death. Evidence tells us the rate of donation increases dramatically when SNODS are involved. And thirdly, increase number of Intensive Care beds, which are needed to allow a transplant to take place.
Of course, we will all be able to ‘opt out’. But we know that most people will not ever think of this issue. The state will be taking organs from people who would have opted out if they had thought about it. This is anathema to those of us who remember the horror of Alder Hey. My view is that ‘opting out’ will in effect be reserved to the more educated, informed part of society.
But the main reason I’m opposed to presumed consent is that it transforms the principle of donated ‘gift’ into a statutory ‘duty’. The State decides and then ‘the state’ acts. We as individuals no longer need to. ‘The State’ will have no interest in asking us. Over recent years we’ve see huge increases in live donors, often donating altruistically. This will fall, (they already are) in the same way care of elderly family members has fallen over time as the state took over the responsibility.
I was very disappointed to learn that my government intends to proceed with presumed consent. There is no evidence to support such a policy. I will not oppose it if it’s a whipped vote, but it should be a ‘free vote’. I will continue to publically oppose it, as I’m doing now, and challenge it on the floor of the House of Commons. It’s putting ideology before evidence. And worst of all, It will not increase number of donors - may even decrease them.
Unfortunately, whenever this issue is under discussion, I have to repeat that I support Organ Donation. I also have to repeat that my opposition is not based of faith or religion, but on efficacy. It does not work. I now refuse to do media interviews. What happens is that someone needing a transplant informs the listener that an organ is needed to save his or her life - and then I’m asked why I disagree. I politely make clear that I don’t disagree. The follow up question (totally ignoring what I’ve just said) is usually asking how I can support religion blocking the saving of a life. I politely point out that my views have nothing to do with religion, but are based on there being no evidence that presumed consent will improve donation levels, and may well lead to the opposite. My experience confirms that there are none so deaf as those who will not listen.
There are three ways in which we can increase organ donation. Firstly promote ‘opting in’. Donor cards are useful but most effective way by a country mile is to tell next of kin. Secondly, increase number of Specialist Nurses (SNODS) who are trained to talk with next of kin when they are coping with the pain of a loved one’s death. Evidence tells us the rate of donation increases dramatically when SNODS are involved. And thirdly, increase number of Intensive Care beds, which are needed to allow a transplant to take place.
Of course, we will all be able to ‘opt out’. But we know that most people will not ever think of this issue. The state will be taking organs from people who would have opted out if they had thought about it. This is anathema to those of us who remember the horror of Alder Hey. My view is that ‘opting out’ will in effect be reserved to the more educated, informed part of society.
But the main reason I’m opposed to presumed consent is that it transforms the principle of donated ‘gift’ into a statutory ‘duty’. The State decides and then ‘the state’ acts. We as individuals no longer need to. ‘The State’ will have no interest in asking us. Over recent years we’ve see huge increases in live donors, often donating altruistically. This will fall, (they already are) in the same way care of elderly family members has fallen over time as the state took over the responsibility.
I was very disappointed to learn that my government intends to proceed with presumed consent. There is no evidence to support such a policy. I will not oppose it if it’s a whipped vote, but it should be a ‘free vote’. I will continue to publically oppose it, as I’m doing now, and challenge it on the floor of the House of Commons. It’s putting ideology before evidence. And worst of all, It will not increase number of donors - may even decrease them.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Prime Minister’s Conference Speech.
Listened to the Prime Minister’s speech on the radio this morning. In the past, my voice has embarrassed me by ‘cracking up’, but never as spectacularly as Theresa May’s voice cracked up today. It was a big achievement on her part to fight her way through to the end. Luckily, I was not concerned about style, presentation or any such things. BBC Wales had invited me on at 5.00pm to discuss the speech on Good Morning Wales. I wanted to know what she actually said!
I thought it a very good speech. In my opinion, it was an unusually radical, progressive speech. It was very much a Theresa May speech, quite prepared to lead a Government intervening where she sees market failure. And it was good that she apologised to party members for the disappointing General Election results. She had, properly, refused to respond to the self important media demands that she apologise before today. She did it in the right and proper place.
The commitment to more housing was very welcome. In particular she made special mention of Councils being given a role in delivering housing. Personally I would like to have heard more about ensuring planning authorities start helping the private sector deliver new housing instead of making it more difficult. But I do sense today’s speech is going to give a green light where previously it’s been red for No.
We also had an announcement of a review of the Mental Health Act. Probably about 20 yrs overdue. And very significantly, the Prime Minister made it clear she’s had enough of energy companies ‘ripping off’ customers. For long enough, they have had warnings that Govt would act if they didn’t set their house in order. They refused, driven by greed, and Theresa May has acted. We will see the Government Bill next week.
It wasn’t all about state intervention though. The Prime Minister spoke at length of a commitment to the role of the private sector, and to the capitalism which has risen living standards of many millions of people across the world. Mrs Theresa May is a true Conservative, one that knows the value of an economy based on capitalist principles, but willing to step in to correct market failures.
One last word of congratulation to Good Evening Wales. My interview did not include anything about the obnoxious publicity seeker which others (like Radio 5 which I listened) seemed more interested in helping gain the publicity he wanted. It was a proper interview about serious subjects.
I thought it a very good speech. In my opinion, it was an unusually radical, progressive speech. It was very much a Theresa May speech, quite prepared to lead a Government intervening where she sees market failure. And it was good that she apologised to party members for the disappointing General Election results. She had, properly, refused to respond to the self important media demands that she apologise before today. She did it in the right and proper place.
The commitment to more housing was very welcome. In particular she made special mention of Councils being given a role in delivering housing. Personally I would like to have heard more about ensuring planning authorities start helping the private sector deliver new housing instead of making it more difficult. But I do sense today’s speech is going to give a green light where previously it’s been red for No.
We also had an announcement of a review of the Mental Health Act. Probably about 20 yrs overdue. And very significantly, the Prime Minister made it clear she’s had enough of energy companies ‘ripping off’ customers. For long enough, they have had warnings that Govt would act if they didn’t set their house in order. They refused, driven by greed, and Theresa May has acted. We will see the Government Bill next week.
It wasn’t all about state intervention though. The Prime Minister spoke at length of a commitment to the role of the private sector, and to the capitalism which has risen living standards of many millions of people across the world. Mrs Theresa May is a true Conservative, one that knows the value of an economy based on capitalist principles, but willing to step in to correct market failures.
One last word of congratulation to Good Evening Wales. My interview did not include anything about the obnoxious publicity seeker which others (like Radio 5 which I listened) seemed more interested in helping gain the publicity he wanted. It was a proper interview about serious subjects.
Sunday, October 01, 2017
Reaching out to the younger generation.
Its very fashionable amongst Conservative commentators to speak of reaching out to younger voters. About time too. If I chip in my tuppenyworth before any of the speeches, I can't be accused of being divisive! Much of today's pre conference discussion focuses on tuition fees and housing. The Prime Minister has been setting the scene. It's still a few weeks before the budget, but seems to me today's discussion has committed to Chancellor to spend/invest quite a few billions under these budget heads.
Let's take tuition fees first. Much of the coverage has been about cancelling proposed increases in fees. I agree with this, but it will deliver a reduction in university's income. They will not be happy about this, not happy at all, but its not earth shattering. And won't be much public sympathy for universities either, after the publicity a few days ago about what uni bosses are paying themselves. But it seems to me that increasing the income level that a graduate must reach before having to repay any loan from £21K to £25K is rather more significant. It's going to cost the Chancellor many billions. So much that in the long run, I think this could be so expensive that it could lead to fewer places at university. I hope it's not too controversial a comment for me to make that this would not be an unwelcome development.
And so on to housing, thought to be a 'touchstone' issue for young people. This really is a key issue. We need young people to have a personal stake in capitalism - through ownership. No better way than through home ownership. I've been saying for a while that we need a dramatic commitment that takes the headlines. "A million new houses by 2022" or something similar. Today's discussion has been about Gov't commitment to 'Help to Buy'. Asking myself if this will work, or will it just feed into higher prices. And it's a lot of public money. Only real way to tackle the housing issue is through allowing more freedom to build. Increase supply. Seems obvious to me. And we need to end hoysebuilders stockpiling land. We need more permissive planning systems. Let the people build, not just let housing associations and councils build. It's the planning system that killing development through limiting supply.
Difficult for me as a past president of CPRW to advocate greater freedom to build - and limiting the ability of planning systems to frustrate development. I recall my astonishment when I was asked to take on presidency of CPRW. I had been Chair of a planning authority for many years, and was in favour of more development. Yes I thought it should be of quality, and sensitively located, but new houses, new factories and new transport infrastructure there has to be. Not sure there's a need for Govt to throw billions at this - just set the private sector free to deliver. Hope these are the messages coming out of Manchester this week.
Let's take tuition fees first. Much of the coverage has been about cancelling proposed increases in fees. I agree with this, but it will deliver a reduction in university's income. They will not be happy about this, not happy at all, but its not earth shattering. And won't be much public sympathy for universities either, after the publicity a few days ago about what uni bosses are paying themselves. But it seems to me that increasing the income level that a graduate must reach before having to repay any loan from £21K to £25K is rather more significant. It's going to cost the Chancellor many billions. So much that in the long run, I think this could be so expensive that it could lead to fewer places at university. I hope it's not too controversial a comment for me to make that this would not be an unwelcome development.
And so on to housing, thought to be a 'touchstone' issue for young people. This really is a key issue. We need young people to have a personal stake in capitalism - through ownership. No better way than through home ownership. I've been saying for a while that we need a dramatic commitment that takes the headlines. "A million new houses by 2022" or something similar. Today's discussion has been about Gov't commitment to 'Help to Buy'. Asking myself if this will work, or will it just feed into higher prices. And it's a lot of public money. Only real way to tackle the housing issue is through allowing more freedom to build. Increase supply. Seems obvious to me. And we need to end hoysebuilders stockpiling land. We need more permissive planning systems. Let the people build, not just let housing associations and councils build. It's the planning system that killing development through limiting supply.
Difficult for me as a past president of CPRW to advocate greater freedom to build - and limiting the ability of planning systems to frustrate development. I recall my astonishment when I was asked to take on presidency of CPRW. I had been Chair of a planning authority for many years, and was in favour of more development. Yes I thought it should be of quality, and sensitively located, but new houses, new factories and new transport infrastructure there has to be. Not sure there's a need for Govt to throw billions at this - just set the private sector free to deliver. Hope these are the messages coming out of Manchester this week.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Newtown. Facing the Global-Rural challenge. Again.
A hugely encouragingly visit to Newtown this afternoon. Parked by the Post Office and walked through an almost fully let Ladywell Shopping Centre. Not seen that for years. Just needs the supermarket site to be occupied now. Then through the new Market Hall. Full of bustle. Bursting at the seams with business activity. Not seen that since is was upgraded two years ago. I know one afternoon is not a renaissance, but it felt a bit like that.
The reason I was there was to visit 'An Exhibition of Newtown's Global Past' located next door to the Market Hall. For me it was as emotional as it was informative. What was being presented as history was (and is) a part of my own life. The only depressing part of the day was me appearing as an interviewee on screen almost 30 yrs ago. Oh the ravages of time!
The history was there, even if it seemed 'current' to me because of the connections to today. When I left Caereinion School to work on the family farm, the economy of Montgomeryshire was being disrupted on two fronts - two aspects of 'globalisation'. Firstly there was the movement of population from farm based employment to our market towns. And after the 2nd World War, the exodus of population from Mid Wales to areas with better communications and access to the big markets. In the 60s/70s/80s/90s, government intervention turned the economy around. I thought that 'intervention' ended two years too soon.
And on to today. The threats to the Mid Wales economy are all around us. Promotion of economic development is being arranged all around us. The Cardiff City Deal, Swansea City Deal, North Wales Growth Deal and the Midlands Engine connected to the Marches LEC. I don't advocate a body based on 'top down' Government intervention like the DBRW, but there does need an organised locally based partnership drawing on Welsh and UK Governments, local economic interests and local authorities. My own experiences of 'top down' intervention lead me to despair at the absence of planning to maximise the benefit of the new Newtown Bypass.
The questions being asked by the Aberystwyth University's GLOBAL-RURAL project was about confidence in the future of Mid Wales. I am an optimist. I usually am about what can be achieved. I know there are threats, and not just from competition on our borders. There's the changes into how government support into the rural economy will impact post Brexit. Certainly planners must become more supportive of farm diversification. But I do think the new Bypass will have a positive impact, even if not planned and maximised.
The exhibition is going to be moving around. I recommend anyone with an interest in our economy takes an hour or two to visit.
The history was there, even if it seemed 'current' to me because of the connections to today. When I left Caereinion School to work on the family farm, the economy of Montgomeryshire was being disrupted on two fronts - two aspects of 'globalisation'. Firstly there was the movement of population from farm based employment to our market towns. And after the 2nd World War, the exodus of population from Mid Wales to areas with better communications and access to the big markets. In the 60s/70s/80s/90s, government intervention turned the economy around. I thought that 'intervention' ended two years too soon.
And on to today. The threats to the Mid Wales economy are all around us. Promotion of economic development is being arranged all around us. The Cardiff City Deal, Swansea City Deal, North Wales Growth Deal and the Midlands Engine connected to the Marches LEC. I don't advocate a body based on 'top down' Government intervention like the DBRW, but there does need an organised locally based partnership drawing on Welsh and UK Governments, local economic interests and local authorities. My own experiences of 'top down' intervention lead me to despair at the absence of planning to maximise the benefit of the new Newtown Bypass.
The questions being asked by the Aberystwyth University's GLOBAL-RURAL project was about confidence in the future of Mid Wales. I am an optimist. I usually am about what can be achieved. I know there are threats, and not just from competition on our borders. There's the changes into how government support into the rural economy will impact post Brexit. Certainly planners must become more supportive of farm diversification. But I do think the new Bypass will have a positive impact, even if not planned and maximised.
The exhibition is going to be moving around. I recommend anyone with an interest in our economy takes an hour or two to visit.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Taking the Temperature of Brexit Talks.
When I started my blog about 15 yrs ago, I often shared my thoughts over a coffee out in Cardiff Bay. Since I'm here today with some time to kill, I've decided to revisit the old practise - over a coffee and caramel waffle in Starbucks. Today my mind wanders to the future of Europe, as the Prime Minister invests time in chat and ritual dancing with Donald Tusk, against background of German election. It will take a few months for the full impact of the arrival of the Alternative fur Deutschland in the Bundestag to work through. Maybe it's because I have grandchildren that whenever I think about translating my thoughts into words I worry about what the future holds. How on earth have we reached the position of Donald Trump in the White House, abuse becoming endemic in our British political system, and the AfD becoming a major player in Germany, where the voting system is meant to prevent this sort of thing happening.
When contemplating which way to vote in the EU Referendum last year, I acknowledged (to myself) that the best argument for Remain was the role the UK could play as Europe faces crisis and probable collapse over the next few years. Britain has centuries of constitutional stability, which works against bloody revolution. I finally decided the UK can do this more effectively outside the self serving out-of-touch elite centred on Brussels. A lot depends on whether the Brexit 'divorce' is amicable and constructive, or the opposite. It's bad news all round if the UK is 'ostracised'.
What are the issues facing the EU (and by extension Europe)? Most worrying is immigration, and the negative reaction to it. The reality is that there will probably be over a billion people trying to move to European countries from Africa and the Middle East. We will all strengthen our immigration controls across Europe, but it will be a mighty challenge, which will feed extremist movements, both on the left and right off political opinion. The AfD will have a field day. In particular, we should divert more of our International Aid to these countries to develop their own economies - trying to tackle the problem at source.
When I see the posturing of the EU elite as we negotiate Brexit, I despair - obsessing about the garden fence as the house falls down. While I voted to Leave, and would do so if there was a re-run referendum, I do believe we owe it to future generations as well as ourselves that we strive for an amicable separation, and a focus on this biggest issue of all. I thought Mrs May's Florence speech was a positive step forward from the UK Government. I'm not at all sure that the EU response will be as positive. It needed a powerful Mrs Merkel to step in and redirect the agenda. It should not be left to the Brussels based out-of-touch bureaucracy. There are big black clouds on the horizon. I just hope the winds of reason will blow them away. That's my coffee done - so rambling can cease for today.
When contemplating which way to vote in the EU Referendum last year, I acknowledged (to myself) that the best argument for Remain was the role the UK could play as Europe faces crisis and probable collapse over the next few years. Britain has centuries of constitutional stability, which works against bloody revolution. I finally decided the UK can do this more effectively outside the self serving out-of-touch elite centred on Brussels. A lot depends on whether the Brexit 'divorce' is amicable and constructive, or the opposite. It's bad news all round if the UK is 'ostracised'.
What are the issues facing the EU (and by extension Europe)? Most worrying is immigration, and the negative reaction to it. The reality is that there will probably be over a billion people trying to move to European countries from Africa and the Middle East. We will all strengthen our immigration controls across Europe, but it will be a mighty challenge, which will feed extremist movements, both on the left and right off political opinion. The AfD will have a field day. In particular, we should divert more of our International Aid to these countries to develop their own economies - trying to tackle the problem at source.
When I see the posturing of the EU elite as we negotiate Brexit, I despair - obsessing about the garden fence as the house falls down. While I voted to Leave, and would do so if there was a re-run referendum, I do believe we owe it to future generations as well as ourselves that we strive for an amicable separation, and a focus on this biggest issue of all. I thought Mrs May's Florence speech was a positive step forward from the UK Government. I'm not at all sure that the EU response will be as positive. It needed a powerful Mrs Merkel to step in and redirect the agenda. It should not be left to the Brussels based out-of-touch bureaucracy. There are big black clouds on the horizon. I just hope the winds of reason will blow them away. That's my coffee done - so rambling can cease for today.
Monday, September 25, 2017
In Flanders Fields
Let the sound of bells and whistles ring out over the football fields of Britain. FIFA has taken a sensible decision. Over recent years, this has not been usual. But Fifa has decided that poppies can be worn by international football teams on and near Remembrance Day to commemorate Armistice Day. Last year, to widespread condemnation, the football authorities of England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland were fined for ignoring a FIFA instruction to not commemorate. Not unreasonably, the change of policy requires that the opposition team are content that symbols should be worn.
Personally, If I was selected to play for Wales (striker would be my favoured position) I would wear a tee shirt under the red shirt of Cymru with the words of John McCrae printed on it.
In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That marks our place: and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up your quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch: be yours to lift it high
If he break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Personally, If I was selected to play for Wales (striker would be my favoured position) I would wear a tee shirt under the red shirt of Cymru with the words of John McCrae printed on it.
In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That marks our place: and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up your quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch: be yours to lift it high
If he break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
The German Election.
Today's German election is much the most important election in Europe this year. Particularly important bearing in mind the UK's decision to Leave the EU in March 2019. If I were a German voter, I would have supported the CDU/CSU alliance led by Angela Merkel. And would have been deeply worried by the rise of Alternative fuer Deutschland. In the event, it seems CDU/CSU alliance has takent 32.9% of the vote (making Theresa May's 42.3% look quite impressive) and the AfD seems to have taken over 13% (and predicted to win 89 seats). This is dramatic and a matter of deep concern to all of Europe. The UK media are focussing on Mrs Merkel winning her 4th election. The real news is the emergence of the AfD. It's not good news, but very bad news indeed.
And it gets worse. Because it seems the SPD have won only 20% of the votes (historically low) any thoughts of another 'Grand Coalition' between Germany's two biggest parties are probably stillborn. It will take a lot to persuade the SPD to serve as 'minority partner' again. Which means Mrs Merkel could spend next few weeks/months putting together a coalition with other parties (with very different philosophies) to govern Germany. A 'Jamaica Coalition' will not be at all easy to pull off. Brexit may well become a very secondary issue. It's not featured in the election to any significant extent. Can't see Mrs Merkel putting Brexit at top of her agenda over next few months.
The worst aspect of today's result, and by a very long way is the emergence of the AfD as a political force in Germany. The AfD is a party that is anti-immigrant, anti-Islam and associated (fairly or unfairly) with ultra right wing (National Socialist) parties that have so tarnished Europe's 20th century history. No other party will work with AfD in any circumstances. Regrettably, the AfD going to be a growing force in German and European politics. Time to start praying.
And it gets worse. Because it seems the SPD have won only 20% of the votes (historically low) any thoughts of another 'Grand Coalition' between Germany's two biggest parties are probably stillborn. It will take a lot to persuade the SPD to serve as 'minority partner' again. Which means Mrs Merkel could spend next few weeks/months putting together a coalition with other parties (with very different philosophies) to govern Germany. A 'Jamaica Coalition' will not be at all easy to pull off. Brexit may well become a very secondary issue. It's not featured in the election to any significant extent. Can't see Mrs Merkel putting Brexit at top of her agenda over next few months.
The worst aspect of today's result, and by a very long way is the emergence of the AfD as a political force in Germany. The AfD is a party that is anti-immigrant, anti-Islam and associated (fairly or unfairly) with ultra right wing (National Socialist) parties that have so tarnished Europe's 20th century history. No other party will work with AfD in any circumstances. Regrettably, the AfD going to be a growing force in German and European politics. Time to start praying.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Prime Minister goes to Italy.
Our Prime Minster, Theresa May has been speaking in Florence today. It was good to see the 3 best mates, Boris, Philip Hammond and David Davis smiling happily in the front row seats. I liked the speech. It was very much as I expected. Much the most encouraging aspect is that the UK media had totally failed to line up interviewees of any significance to declare it was "disappointing" and "unrealistic". Not even the BBC. Most negative line was that not much would change for 5 years. My response to that is "So what". They had to fall back on Nigel Farage, and we all know that nothing would have satisfied him. He had prepared his negative lines before he heard the speech!
There will be differing responses, including within the Conservative Party. Already had one constituent on the phone upset that we are not just walking away with no deal. Personally, I welcome today's speech. Very much in line with my own opinions. The UK will leave the EU end of March 2019 - a timetable driven by the Lisbon Treaty. That does not leave enough time to work through a trade deal which is best for both sides. It seems there will be a period of about two years after March 2019 to negotiate a sensible trade deal which benefits EU and UK. Again personally, my response is "So what". We need best possible deal, and 'so what' if it takes until 2021. We do need the deal to be done before General Election in 2022 though.
What finance transfers there will be from UK to EU is another big issue. Personally, I've always accepted the the UK will pay what we owe, both legally and morally. In fact the figures being talked about today are far lower than that we had been led to expect. I suspect the EU negotiators will want more. But what's important to the negotiations is that it's interpreted as 'sufficient progress' to move on to discussions on trade.
Two other comments I want to make. Will be looking at commentators opinions. Is the reassurance given to EU legally migrants in the UK in the UK acceptable. And how will the commentators react to Mrs May herself. My view is that she is a good Prime Minister. Today I thought she really looked the part. I sense that she has poked in the eye those who have been most relentless in their criticisms.
There will be differing responses, including within the Conservative Party. Already had one constituent on the phone upset that we are not just walking away with no deal. Personally, I welcome today's speech. Very much in line with my own opinions. The UK will leave the EU end of March 2019 - a timetable driven by the Lisbon Treaty. That does not leave enough time to work through a trade deal which is best for both sides. It seems there will be a period of about two years after March 2019 to negotiate a sensible trade deal which benefits EU and UK. Again personally, my response is "So what". We need best possible deal, and 'so what' if it takes until 2021. We do need the deal to be done before General Election in 2022 though.
What finance transfers there will be from UK to EU is another big issue. Personally, I've always accepted the the UK will pay what we owe, both legally and morally. In fact the figures being talked about today are far lower than that we had been led to expect. I suspect the EU negotiators will want more. But what's important to the negotiations is that it's interpreted as 'sufficient progress' to move on to discussions on trade.
Two other comments I want to make. Will be looking at commentators opinions. Is the reassurance given to EU legally migrants in the UK in the UK acceptable. And how will the commentators react to Mrs May herself. My view is that she is a good Prime Minister. Today I thought she really looked the part. I sense that she has poked in the eye those who have been most relentless in their criticisms.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Complexities of 'end of life' care
BBC is reporting today on an important legal case where Mr Justice Jackson has ruled that where relatives and clinicians treating patients in a permanent vegetative state agree that care can be ended, there should be no need for a judge to agree as well. Until now, all treatment, except withdrawal of food and fluid can be ended without a judge's involvement. A judge's involvement means incurring great unnecessary expense. However, the implications of this judgement are such that the Official Solicitor may well appeal in the interests of clarifying the law.
This is a sensitive and difficult policy area, morally, legally and from the perspective of patient safety. A few years ago, I made public comment disagreeing with a judge who had ruled that a patient suffering from anorexia, with only a minuscule chance of living should be force fed. The case attracted a lot of publicity, as did my comment, which I had intended only to stimulate discussion. It was a policy area of interest to me, being opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide - itself not a straightforward issue. The Justice Jackson case is not the same, but raises equally difficult questions in the field of end of life.
In this case, and at this stage, I rather agree with the judge. But I do feel the need to discuss it with others before coming to a final conclusion. Relatives and clinicians can already take actions such as withdrawing Dialysis, which results in death, without the involvement of a judge. I cannot see why this principle cannot be extended withdrawal of food and fluids. The only issue of concern to me is that it only applies in cases where the patient is in a permanent vegetative state and has miniscule chance of recovery.
This is a sensitive and difficult policy area, morally, legally and from the perspective of patient safety. A few years ago, I made public comment disagreeing with a judge who had ruled that a patient suffering from anorexia, with only a minuscule chance of living should be force fed. The case attracted a lot of publicity, as did my comment, which I had intended only to stimulate discussion. It was a policy area of interest to me, being opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide - itself not a straightforward issue. The Justice Jackson case is not the same, but raises equally difficult questions in the field of end of life.
In this case, and at this stage, I rather agree with the judge. But I do feel the need to discuss it with others before coming to a final conclusion. Relatives and clinicians can already take actions such as withdrawing Dialysis, which results in death, without the involvement of a judge. I cannot see why this principle cannot be extended withdrawal of food and fluids. The only issue of concern to me is that it only applies in cases where the patient is in a permanent vegetative state and has miniscule chance of recovery.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Scotland and Wales First Ministers in tandem
Wales First Minister, Carwyn Jones and Scotland First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon seemed to getting along very well in all today's TV clips. They might have disagreed over the Scottish Independence Referendum but they do give the impression of being as one in wanting to stop Brexit happening in March 2019 - or at all! know that Carwyn Jones says that he accepts the EU Referendum result but it doesn't sound much like it to me. Whatever, the Carwyn/Nicola show was in full cry today. I'm not sure how much of it is bluster for public consumption and how much is for real.
It seems that the Wales First Minister is planning to put forward 38 amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I suppose he would have to persuade MPs or members of the Lords to do this for him. And if these amendments are not agreed to, Carwyn Jones informs us will ask Assembly Members to refuse to agree to the Bill. Must admit I don't know precisely what power he has to deliver on this - or whether the Assembly Members can actually stop the Bill making progress. Maybe it's no more than an attempt to put pressure on the Westminster Gov't to agree to his demands. The reason I decided to write this blog post was because I need some clarity on the constitutional position here. If a constitutional lawyer happens upon this comment, any clarity would be welcomed. So treat this as 'work in progress'.
According to the BBC, the First Minister has four aims.
1) Ensure devolved policy areas come back to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament after Brexit.
2) Prevent UK Minsters unilaterally changing the Gov't of Wales Act and the Scotland Act.
3) Require the agreement of the Welsh Gov't on necessary changes to EU Gov't law in devolved areas after Brexit.
4) Ensure additional restrictions are not placed on devolved ministers compared with UK Gov't ministers.
I expect there to be much discussion between the UK Gov't and devolved Gov'ts over these 'conditions' as there will be over how we develop 'statutory frameworks' to protect the UK internal market and work through the powers being transferred temporarily into a 'Holding Pattern'.
I repeat, treat this blog post as 'work in progress'!
It seems that the Wales First Minister is planning to put forward 38 amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I suppose he would have to persuade MPs or members of the Lords to do this for him. And if these amendments are not agreed to, Carwyn Jones informs us will ask Assembly Members to refuse to agree to the Bill. Must admit I don't know precisely what power he has to deliver on this - or whether the Assembly Members can actually stop the Bill making progress. Maybe it's no more than an attempt to put pressure on the Westminster Gov't to agree to his demands. The reason I decided to write this blog post was because I need some clarity on the constitutional position here. If a constitutional lawyer happens upon this comment, any clarity would be welcomed. So treat this as 'work in progress'.
According to the BBC, the First Minister has four aims.
1) Ensure devolved policy areas come back to the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament after Brexit.
2) Prevent UK Minsters unilaterally changing the Gov't of Wales Act and the Scotland Act.
3) Require the agreement of the Welsh Gov't on necessary changes to EU Gov't law in devolved areas after Brexit.
4) Ensure additional restrictions are not placed on devolved ministers compared with UK Gov't ministers.
I expect there to be much discussion between the UK Gov't and devolved Gov'ts over these 'conditions' as there will be over how we develop 'statutory frameworks' to protect the UK internal market and work through the powers being transferred temporarily into a 'Holding Pattern'.
I repeat, treat this blog post as 'work in progress'!
Monday, September 18, 2017
20 yrs ago today, the voters of Wales decided.
On 18th September 1997, the voters of Wales decided that a National Assembly for Wales should be established. Well, around 25% of them did. But as someone once surely said "one is a majority". And 6,000 votes is a lot more than one. Even if it wasn't a thumping 52%/48% victory. A majority of 0.6% ignored my advice that they should reject this expensive extra layer of bureaucracy. I was the only No person at the count in Llandrindod Wells in the early hours of Sept 19th when the last result came in from Carmarthen giving the Yes campaigners victory. I was surrounded by dancing, singing, whooping and tears of joy. I could see immediately that there was not to be any going back. Case of "if you can't beat them, join them"! Not quite perhaps, but I did accept the result immediately, and have worked to make a success of it ever since.
I stood for election to the National Assembly at its first election in 1999. I was defeated in Montgomeryshire by the all conquering Liberal Democrats in the form of Mick Bates. But I was elected as a 'regional' Assembly Member' for Mid and West Wales. Same thing happened 4 yrs later in 2003. But by 2007, the Labour machine banned 'duel candidacy' and I had to choose which hill to climb. Since I'd represented Mid and West Wales for 8 yrs I went for the 'list seat' and my political career bit the dust because my Conservative Party did too well. I was sad about that. That sort of thing happens with PR systems.
Anyway, in 2010, I rose from my political grave to be elected MP for Montgomeryshire, vanquishing the colourful Lembit Opik, and repeated the performance with increasing majorities in 2015 and 2017. Earlier this year I was very pleased to be a part of the Wales Office team that took the most recent Wales Act through to the statute book. I was especially pleased that responsibility for raising income tax and that the 'conferred powers' model of devolution has been replaced by the 'reserved powers model.
Its my desire to see devolution be a success, I do not think it has been yet. Services have not improved. If anything the reverse has been the case. And disappointingly, the politics of the National Assembly has not changed as I would have expected. Labour has formed the Government since day one, supported for part of that time by Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems and by Lord Elis Thomas. No fault on Labour for this. It's a matter for the opposition parties. Unfortunately, the Welsh Conservatives have not persuaded others (notably Plaid Cymru) to lie in bed beside them. Maybe someday. When Labour are in opposition, the Welsh Parliament will have 'grown up'. Hope we don't have to wait 20 years for that!
I stood for election to the National Assembly at its first election in 1999. I was defeated in Montgomeryshire by the all conquering Liberal Democrats in the form of Mick Bates. But I was elected as a 'regional' Assembly Member' for Mid and West Wales. Same thing happened 4 yrs later in 2003. But by 2007, the Labour machine banned 'duel candidacy' and I had to choose which hill to climb. Since I'd represented Mid and West Wales for 8 yrs I went for the 'list seat' and my political career bit the dust because my Conservative Party did too well. I was sad about that. That sort of thing happens with PR systems.
Anyway, in 2010, I rose from my political grave to be elected MP for Montgomeryshire, vanquishing the colourful Lembit Opik, and repeated the performance with increasing majorities in 2015 and 2017. Earlier this year I was very pleased to be a part of the Wales Office team that took the most recent Wales Act through to the statute book. I was especially pleased that responsibility for raising income tax and that the 'conferred powers' model of devolution has been replaced by the 'reserved powers model.
Its my desire to see devolution be a success, I do not think it has been yet. Services have not improved. If anything the reverse has been the case. And disappointingly, the politics of the National Assembly has not changed as I would have expected. Labour has formed the Government since day one, supported for part of that time by Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems and by Lord Elis Thomas. No fault on Labour for this. It's a matter for the opposition parties. Unfortunately, the Welsh Conservatives have not persuaded others (notably Plaid Cymru) to lie in bed beside them. Maybe someday. When Labour are in opposition, the Welsh Parliament will have 'grown up'. Hope we don't have to wait 20 years for that!
Sunday, September 17, 2017
What did Boris mean by that!
Personally, I'm reckon a bit of disagreement within political parties can be positive and creative. It can lead to better decision making in that it can expose an unwise step to closer scrutiny. I know that political party's whipping operations like to keep everything under tight control, but Farage/UKIP, Corbyn/Labour and Trump/Republican have shown us that in today's turbulent politics, where social media and fake news are so influential, dominating the agenda is what matters - within reason anyway.
Anyway Boris Johnson wrote a 4,000 word article for the Daily Telegraph yesterday which doesn't seem to fit into anyone's media planning. It's generated a lot of interest, despite being totally loyal to the Prime Minister, and not actually saying anything he's not said before. As always with Boris, his writing is flamboyant, and his arguments well constructed. And it will connect. The aspect that interests me is what he says about the claim made by the Leave side leading up to the EU Referendum that leaving the EU would allow a future UK Govt to invest another £350million per week in the NHS.
I don't think anyone can give us precise figures, but this 'promise' made in early 2016, would have meant an extra £18bn per year added to the NHS budget. I should add that though I voted Leave, I did not use this figure at all. It seems to me that we could spend £18bn per year when we stop paying in (prob 2022). Though Boris thinks it could be earlier. The Govt has already increased the NHS budget by £8bn per year since the EU Referendum, and I'd be surprised if the NHS budget was not increased again in the November budget.
Boris is a brilliant wordsmith. His article or 'essay' is readable and conveys a joyously optimistic
vision of a UK outside the EU. It is in no way disloyal to the Prime Minister and it says nothing that he hasn't said before. It was a very good read. I'm looking forward to a similarly good read on Friday when the Prime Minister makes a key Brexit speech in Florence. After a few months when not much seems to have been happening on the Brexit front, it does look as if things are starting to take shape. It's very interesting times we live in.
Anyway Boris Johnson wrote a 4,000 word article for the Daily Telegraph yesterday which doesn't seem to fit into anyone's media planning. It's generated a lot of interest, despite being totally loyal to the Prime Minister, and not actually saying anything he's not said before. As always with Boris, his writing is flamboyant, and his arguments well constructed. And it will connect. The aspect that interests me is what he says about the claim made by the Leave side leading up to the EU Referendum that leaving the EU would allow a future UK Govt to invest another £350million per week in the NHS.
I don't think anyone can give us precise figures, but this 'promise' made in early 2016, would have meant an extra £18bn per year added to the NHS budget. I should add that though I voted Leave, I did not use this figure at all. It seems to me that we could spend £18bn per year when we stop paying in (prob 2022). Though Boris thinks it could be earlier. The Govt has already increased the NHS budget by £8bn per year since the EU Referendum, and I'd be surprised if the NHS budget was not increased again in the November budget.
Boris is a brilliant wordsmith. His article or 'essay' is readable and conveys a joyously optimistic
vision of a UK outside the EU. It is in no way disloyal to the Prime Minister and it says nothing that he hasn't said before. It was a very good read. I'm looking forward to a similarly good read on Friday when the Prime Minister makes a key Brexit speech in Florence. After a few months when not much seems to have been happening on the Brexit front, it does look as if things are starting to take shape. It's very interesting times we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)