Connect with us
Advertisement
Advertisement

Politics

‘Sort finances before service changes’

Published

on

Proposals must be financially sound: Dinah Mulholland, Ceredigion CLP

ONE ​of​ ​w​est Wales’ Labour Constituency Parties has called for the Health Board not to proceed with its plans for major health service change until its long-standing financial crisis has been resolved.

On Friday, May 25, Ceredigion Constituency Labour Party passed a motion calling on the Board to think again.

In the last financial year the health board overspent its £760m budget by £70m, or ​9%​, and the board itself describes its regular overspends as ​’​growing year on year​’​.

Ceredigion Labour Party points out that although the changes in service provision which are being proposed may provide better patient care, they cannot also be expected to deliver savings if standards of care are intended to be maintained.

Dinah Mulholland, spokesperson for CCLP, said: ​”​We welcome all attempts to improve local health services. But acceptable proposals must be based on sound financial projections and dependable financial commitments.

“For instance, all three of the board’s alternative proposals for the delivery of clinical services involve the building of a new major urgent and planned care hospital `between Narberth and St Clears’, to replace other hospitals that would be closed or downgraded. Yet the Welsh Government has offered no commitment to provide capital funding for this scheme.

“We are calling for a `Stop and Fix’ approach because unless the financial arrangements are stabilised we see a very real threat that at some point during the next few years progress with major changes in service provision could be overtaken and overwhelmed by a sudden financial collapse.

“And if the board is preoccupied with delivering major changes in service provision it will be paying less attention to managing its ongoing financial problems.

“We would welcome a commitment from Hywel Dda not to proceed with any major reconfiguration of clinical services until it has secured resources to remedy the chronic and ingrained underfunding of health services in mid and west Wales. This proposed reconfiguration cannot and should not be expected to solve Hywel Dda’s long-standing problem with underfunding.”

Last week (May 23) the Welsh Health Secretary announced an annual increase of £27m in Hywel Dda’s revenue funding, but CCLP describes this as “sticking plaster” as it represents only 39% of the deficit in the last financial year.

The Health Secretary has said that this new funding puts Hywel Dda on a “fair funding basis”, but CCLP points out that if the board’s funding has only just become “fair” this raises additional questions about how much the local NHS budget has been “short-changed” in every year since the National Assembly began.

A review by the Welsh Government, as part of the Targeted Intervention support provided to Hywel Dda Health Board, found that two factors, demographics and scale, generated excess costs that were unavoidable to the Board.

The review, undertaken by Deloitte LLP, confirms the view held by many people in Ceredigion and mid and west Wales that Hywel Dda faces a unique set of healthcare challenges.

Hywel Dda is consulting the public on three alternative proposals for providing clinical care, closing and/or downgrading Withybush Hospital, Prince Philip hospital in Llanelli and Glangwili hospital in Carmarthen. In all three proposals community care would be strengthened so that more people can be treated and supported closer to home. In all versions Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth would remain as a District General Hospital.

The 12-week public consultation began on 19 April and will end on 12 July. Ceredigion CLP is also critical of the board’s plans for obtaining the views of the public, which it points out do not include any meetings with platform speakers open to the general public. CCLP says this is unacceptable.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Public feel ‘disengaged’ from Parliament

Published

on

RESEARCH by The Hansard Society suggests that the public is increasingly disenchanted with the UK’s system of government.

Founded in 1944, the Hansard Society is dedicated to expounding the principles and practice of parliamentary democracy and its challenges. It is widely recognised as the Westminster Parliament’s ‘critical friend’.

Contrary to a belief peddled by some commentators, the research, published in the 16th Audit of Public Engagement, finds that the public care about political issues. However, the research also shows that many are unhappy and frustrated about the way in which Parliament works. As a result, a significant proportion of voters are ready to consider a radical change to our system of government.

Over one-half of the Audit’s respondents think that what the country needs is a ‘strong’ leader, prepared to break the rules. Around 40% think that the government could better deal with the country’s problems if it was not tied to parliamentary votes.

72% say the system of governing needs ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ of improvement. That figure is a significant increase on the previous year, itself at a worrying level of 67%. The number of people who say the system needs ‘a great deal’ of improvement has risen eight points in a year, to 37%.

Asked whether the problem is the system or the people, the largest group (38%) say ‘both’.

When asked which institutions are most likely to act in the public interest, UK citizens have more confidence in the military and judges than in politiciansPoliticians will be pleased to see that they still rank ahead of political parties, big business and newspapers as more likely to act in the public interest.

Strikingly, only 25% of the public have confidence in MPs’ handling of Brexit. People were asked whether key groups’ and institutions’ handling of Brexit had given them more or less confidence in these groups and institutions to act in the public’s best interest. 60% said they had less confidence in political parties, 60% in the government and 57% in MPs as a result of their handling of Brexit. Confidence had been driven down the least in civil servants (41%) and judges (35%) as a result of their handling of Brexit.

75% say the main political parties are so divided within themselves that they cannot serve the best interests of the country. 50% say the main parties and politicians don’t care about people like them.

Well over half the public are downbeat about the state of Britain – 56% think Britain is in decline, 63% think Britain’s system of government is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful, and 66% think most big issues facing the country today don’t have clear solutions.

The public is evenly split between those who prefer politicians who make compromises with people they disagree with (48%) and those who prefer politicians who stick to their positions (45%). 66% think politicians should be able to say what’s on their mind regardless of what anyone else thinks about their views.

Despite the legislative chaos following the last Brexit referendum, 55% still think that big questions should be put to the public in referendums more often than today.

The Audit suggests a dissolution of the ties between the governed and their representatives. Although core indicators of political engagement remain stable, beneath the surface the strongest feelings of powerlessness and disengagement are intensifying. The number who ‘strongly disagree’ that political involvement can change the way the UK is run (18%) has hit a 15-year high. 47% feel they have no influence at all over national decision-making – a new high for the Audit series.

At the national and local levels, the numbers of those feeling they have no influence at all have jumped by seven and nine points in a year, respectively. This intensification of the strongest feelings of powerlessness has occurred even as the overall measures of people’s sense of influence, which include those who feel less strongly, have declined only slightly since last year.

Continue Reading

Politics

Generation gap spells trouble for Tories

Published

on

ON MONDAY, the Conservative think-tank Onward published a report into generational voting patterns, policy priorities and political values.

The report considers why age has become the key dividing line in British politics, what has happened since the last general election, and what can be done to win over millions of younger people deserting the centre-right in considerable numbers.

The report follows a detailed 10,000 sample poll, conducted by Hanbury Strategy. It is the largest study of the generation gap since age became the key political dividing line in British politics.

Younger and older voters have always been politically different, but never by this much

In 2017, the gap between younger and older voters was 50 points larger than the post-war average since 1945 and five times higher than in 2010. It started, in 2015 before Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the Labour Party. This gap has grown, not narrowed, since the last General Election.

In 2017, “the tipping point age” – the median age at which a voter is more likely to vote Conservative than Labour – was 47 years old. The report establishes that, since the election, “the tipping point” has risen by 4 years to 51 years old.

The Conservative age curve is getting steeper. Among 18–24-year-olds, 14% said they would vote Conservative if there was an election today. 62% said they would vote Labour. 9% of this group said they would vote for the Liberal Democrats.

Among those over 65 years old, the opposite was true, 56% of respondents said they would vote Conservative, against 24% for Labour. The only groups with a net positive vote for Conservatives are 55–64s and voters over the age of 65.

Projecting the results of the survey forward to 2022 shows that the Conservatives face a wipeout in Wales.

If age continues to be a predictor of vote intention, the Conservatives are also in trouble in London. For example, Putney, which has a majority of just 3.3%, has 2.6 younger people for every older person. Other Conservative seats potentially affected by the demographic shift include the Cities of London and Westminster, Hendon, Chelsea and Fulham, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip (currently held by would-be PM Boris Johnson).

According to Onward, the dissonance between different age groups largely down to the Conservatives’ failure to win over younger voters. 28% of under-35s would consider voting Conservative, but fewer than 17% say they would do so if an election were held today. Onward says that this amounts to 3 million voters young Conservative considerers which could be won over but currently would not vote for the party.

Polling among the younger age group suggests that on some policies, the Conservatives could be knocking on an open door. 18-24s are most in favour (63%) of keeping more of their own money and paying less tax. However, they also favour making the economy fairer, not just bigger. Nearly two-thirds of people favour “reducing the gap between rich and poor” over “working to create faster economic growth”, with 18-24s most in favour (67%).

On immigration, there is net support for reducing immigration in every age bracket, within every ethnic group, and among Remain voters.

In terms of priorities, the environment is the third top issue for 18-24-year-old voters and younger voters. Notably, immigration is of far lesser importance to younger voters than older ones, a reverse of the position on welfare benefits, about which older voters are far less exercised. All age groups regard the NHS and Brexit as the top two priorities.

A disconcerting gap is rising in the Conservatives’ appeal to female voters. Only 8% of 18-24-year-old women would vote Conservative today, which correlates heavily with pessimism: 56% of women think the next generation will be worse off than their own. Meanwhile, Asian voters (42%) are nearly as likely to consider voting Conservative as White voters (44%), but only half as many would do so today.

Continue Reading

Politics

Lib Dems slam ‘botched’ scheme

Published

on

THE WELSH Liberal Democrats have slammed the Conservative Government for their “hapless treatment” of EU citizens after the Home Office released guidance on the new EU Settlement Scheme.

The Home Office has confirmed that for the duration of the trial period, until 30 March, EU citizens applying to stay in the UK must either use an Android phone or travel to one of 13 ‘document scanning’ centres instead.

For Holyhead, the closest ‘document scanning’ centre is Trafford.

According to an analysis by the Welsh Liberal Democrats, EU citizens travelling from Holyhead would face costs of £55 on the train for at least a six and a half hour round trip. The drive would be a 224-mile round trip costing around £56 in fuel.

The only document scanning centre in Wales is in Caerphilly. Travelling from Pembroke to Caerphilly and returning the same day by rail would cost £32.10 (the cheapest available fare at the time of enquiry), the cheapest off-peak fare from Aberystwyth would be £77.10 return. By car at an average of 40mpg, the cost of travel would be at least £27 to and from Pembroke, while from Aberystwyth the cost would be at least £25. Both car journeys represent round trips of over 180 miles.

Welsh Liberal Democrat Leader Jane Dodds said: “Too many people in Wales are deeply anxious about their right to stay. Many of them fill vital roles in the health service, our schools and the tourism sector. They want to register as soon as possible, but Theresa May’s hapless treatment of EU citizens could result in a new Windrush scandal.

“For anyone who doesn’t have an android phone, this botched scheme means they will have to travel. For people in Holyhead, that means facing a 224-mile round trip and paying over £50 for the privilege. This postcode lottery is simply unacceptable.”

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Ed Davey MP said: “Following significant pressure, the Prime Minister said there will be no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay. How long did that commitment last?

“It is Conservative Ministers who have made a mess of Brexit. They should either pay the cost for EU citizens or change the application system and ensure EU citizens are made to feel welcome in the UK.

“Ultimately, the best way to avoid all of this mess is by giving the people the option to remain in the EU with a final say on Brexit.”

Continue Reading

Trending

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK