Author: Mike Cordingley

Ed and Justine with kids after Royal Barge had just gone by

John Butcher – A (bloody Tory) councillor in Surrey sent this email to explain their absence from Health Scrutiny.  I don’t think it requires further comment.

1 Please pass on my apology for absence from the Surrey HOSC meeting on 24 May 2012, but I have a hospital appointment that day, and it has already been postponed once.

2 Because of the economic catastrophe facing the capitalist world, the NHS, that is a Marxist organisation, is bound to fail – like Greece.

The government’s efforts to ‘improve’ it are merely a postponement of that failure, which will arise from ever-increasing demand for, and the unit costs of, healthcare and the ever-decreasing national wealth available to afford those demands and costs, through taxation or otherwise.

Politicians who support the diversion of increasingly scarce fiscal resources into propping up the NHS, without taking measures to curb demand, not only accelerate its eventual demise but allow more important demands on the public purse to go unmet, with serious adverse consequences to the people. It will be the people who suffer from the collapse of the NHS – but they will have only themselves to blame – for voting in politicians who promise to improve the NHS regardless of other factors.

3 One way of saving the NHS is to encourage patients to take very much more care of themselves, with penalties on those who won’t do that. If the NHS in Surrey were to be run on the basis that patients with self-inflicted morbidity (mainly – smoking, alcohol, narcotics, obesity) and injury (dangerous activities) are, following due warning, placed in a much slower-moving queue for healthcare than ‘other’ patients, this would encourage the self-inflicted to move away from Surrey, to areas where there is no differentiation between patients on the grounds of their contribution towards their condition.

And it would deter the self-inflicted from coming to live in Surrey. Over time, that would result in the healthcare for the ‘other’ patients in Surrey being significantly better than the average national level for all patients, as the resources deployed to the self-inflicted would be very much reduced.

This factor would attract more ‘other’ patients to come to live in Surrey – and that would push up house prices here – assuming that planning controls remain similar to now.

4 Eventually the self-inflicted patients would end up living in ‘equality’ areas that are dominated by politicians who pander to their needs, thus driving more ‘other’ patients out of those areas, as healthcare there will be badly affected by the over-dominance of the self-inflicted.

These ‘other’ patients would move into areas, such as, hopefully, Surrey, where ‘other’ patients are not nearly so adversely affected. Eventually the country will be sharply divided into two types of area:

4.1 the ‘equality’ ones, where the self-inflicted unhealthy are treated the same as all patients, and 4.2 the ‘others’, such as, hopefully, Surrey.

Average life expectancy will be substantially lower (by, say, 20 years) in the ‘equality’ areas than in the ‘others’. This may mean that ‘other’ patients moving out of ‘equality’ areas may have to live in a less desirable dwelling, because of house price differentials, but that is a trade-off, that they can choose, with healthcare differentials between the two types of area.

Such house price differentials already apply for schooling, with houses on one side of a catchment boundary being worth a lot more than houses on the other side of it.

Indeed, the perception that the gap in those prices between those two types of healthcare area will grow substantially will encourage the ‘other’ patients in those ‘equality’ areas to move out of them sooner, lest they see their dwelling there becoming worthless.

5 Thus, any political party that seeks to pander to the needs of the self-inflicted unhealthy, and to win their votes, will suffer twofold: 5.1 mortality will ensure that its voters will be much fewer in number than the ‘others’, and

5.2 by concentrating its voters into particular areas, that party will never be able to win enough seats to dominate Parliament.

Regards John Butcher

 

Save Trafford General A&E Meeting

In a packed Community Centre in Flixton last night, the senior officials leading the reorgansitation of health services on our patch came to address the worries of local people.

Over 100 people came to listen; to find out what was planned, why it was happening, and how quality healthcare would be delivered. That was what they came for, but the presentations were so lacking in substance, that 100 people went away again clear that the full or partial closure of A&E was firmly on the agenda but with no reassurance that health provision would be protected.

Leila Williams, Head of Service Transformation NHS Gtr Manchester, spent a long time explaining that the aim was to ensure more people were treated at home which was proven to produce the best outcomes, but the audience quite rightly asked ‘what has that got to do with closing A&E?’ The audience had turned up to have specific concerns addressed about A&E and it seemed the officials were reluctant throughout to tackle those concerns head-on.

The Management Case

The key elements that I picked up in what was a frustrating dialogue:

Trafford’s A&E was the 2nd smallest in the country – to which an audience member responded quite rightly that if you close Trafford’s then another A&E will gain the distinction of being 2nd smallest, so close that and another becomes 2nd smallest. It wasn’t a sustainable argument.

The numbers coming through the doors didn’t allow for the best range of conditions to be handled. Ambulances were already diverting stroke sufferers to Salford, Trauma to MRI.

But the audience provided numerous anecdotal experiences of having faced a shortage of specialist beds at these hospitals and either enduring transfer to Macclesfield, Alderhey etc. or being in a queue out on the wards waiting for that specialist bed.

The small size of Trafford meant it was difficult to recruit the best staff – the vision for Trafford General was to provide services where it could be a centre of excellence, for instance it was developing proposals for an Orthapedic Centre.

The suscipicion of the audience was that the continuing uncertainty over Trafford General was also a factor in diminishing its ability to recruit. Provide that reassurance and confidence and you might find it easier. Additionally the acquisition by Central Manchester Foundation Trust meant that Trafford’s hospital was part of a much bigger organisation bringing opportunities to interchange.

Whilst the professionals didn’t focus on the cost, it was a recurring underlying theme. And since it wasn’t highlighted there was little audience focus on the fact the NHS was being required by this Conservative Government to make ‘savings’ (see conclusion below)

The Residents’ Case

I’ve covered much of the resident’s response in that the residents challenged most aspects of the business case. However a couple of anecdotes caught my attention.

One man had resisted obtaining medical advice over his sudden deterioration in health until he was finally persuaded to take himself to A&E at Trafford where he was quickly diagnosed as being in a critical condition as a consequence of peritonitis. Since he’d left it to the last moment to attend A&E, would he still be here had the A&E been less local?

This to me is a critical question. I’ve seen estimates that lives would be saved through the centralisation into specialist urgent care services but does that take into account instances like this. Had this man had further to travel to A&E would he have left it still later to present himself? And had he consequently died, would the remoteness of the A&E be considered a factor in the cause of death. Whilst it might even be true that specialisation and centralisation could save some lives, might it not be true that it costs others theirs.

I was also concerned by a resident from Partington. The more services are removed from Trafford General, the more isolated Partington becomes. Whilst Salford is only a couple of miles away from much of north Trafford, both it and Central Manchester are far more difficult to reach from Partington.

There was quite a lot of criticism over the fact that the investment in Altrincham General was continuing when they had nearby Wythenshawe Hospital to call upon. It was clearly voiced that Altrincham is listened to whilst Urmston and Stretford are ignored. People near me remembered the criticism expressed in the letters page of one of the local papers by a Consultant from Trafford General over the continued misplaced priority in providing a new Altrincham General.

In Conclusion

I thought that my colleague Councillor Jo Harding, who is Save Trafford General’s campaign co-ordinator got it spot on in her very good summing up:

We are yet to be convinced that risks have been addressed.

We are yet to be convinced that the capacity is available elsewhere.

We are yet to be convinced that Trafford General’s A&E is being given a fair crack to reach its full potential.

The financial aspect of this really angers me; and in this I turn my attention on those bloody Tories in Government. The repeat offenders – they did their best to run down the NHS during the 80s and 90s; and they’re doing it again. Their reorganisations are sucking resources away from health provision. And we’re about to lose A&E. Locally they’ll purport to be supporting Trafford General, but they’ll continue to back Lansley in demolishing the NHS.

The Environment Agency’s Minded to Grant Permission in its Draft Ruling

The full press release

The Environment Agency is inviting local residents and interest groups to comment for a final time on the proposals for a biomass combustion plant in Trafford.

Following a rigorous assessment process, we are minded to give approval to Peel Energy Ltd and grant an environmental permit, however there is still time for local people to submit comments or information with the Environment Agency in writing before 11 July 2012.

It is the Environment Agency’s role to regulate energy from waste sites and a draft decision to grant an environmental permit to Peel Energy will not affect the need for them to gain planning approval before construction of the proposed plant can go ahead.

The draft permit imposes strict conditions to ensure that local people and the environment are protected.  If the facility does go ahead, we will ensure that it adheres to rigorous standards and will watch closely to make sure the conditions of the permit are met.

Gordon Whitaker, Environment Manager for Greater Manchester, said: “We have carried out a thorough assessment of the application. We have consulted widely receiving comments from other organisations, including Trafford and Salford Councils, Trafford and Salford Primary Care Trusts and the Food Standards Agency. Following this assessment and comments from health experts we are confident the facility will not harm the environment or human health.

“Although we have reached the stage where we are considering issuing a permit, our decision is not final and this last stage of consultation will give everybody the chance to see what the permit may look like and to raise any additional concerns before we make a final decision.

“The draft environmental permit and decision document, which outlines how we have reached our decision is available for members of the public to view.  Any new comments should be made in writing by 11 July 2012. An information session is planned on 12 June at the Lucozade Powerleague Trafford Soccer Dome, Trafford Park, between 2-7 pm for people wanting to ask questions on the draft decision.”

I’m outraged by the lack of @TraffordCouncil‘s councillors objections made to @EnvAgencyNW. Only 6 labour and NO conservatives! #OUTRAGEOUS

— Mason Corbishley (@MasonCorbishley) May 30, 2012

a) Representations from Local MPs and Councillors

Representations were received from the following MPs:

Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston);

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South);

Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West).

and the following Councillors:

David Acton (Trafford);

Mike Cordingley (Gorse Hill);

Joanne Harding (Urmston);

Dolores O’ Sullivan (Trafford);

Kevin Proctor (Urmston);

Tom Ross (Stretford).

Frankly I’m extremely dismayed that Conservative Councillors have failed to give voice to their opposition to this. There’s a danger that their opposition is perceived as half-hearted now the elections are out of the way. I can understand the anger of campaigners that the Conservatives have not put their backs into this. They are so noticable by their absence on this list

The Times has been running their Cycle Safe campaign to identify hazardous road layouts for cyclists. Unsurprisingly the Barton Road / Chester Road Gyratory has received a lot of criticism. The cyclist heading from Barton Road towards Altrincham finds themself merging into the fast third lane of the main arterial route and having to navigate to the inside lane as motor traffic also sorts itself ready to join the M60.

Sometimes there are no clever solutions to hazardous junctions but on this occasion a potential fix has been put forward by ‘Tom’ on Urmston.net.

I’m drawn to this layout of Tom’s. I think it has merit. Instead of the Manchester bound traffic heading along the direction of Barton Road before swinging right, the Manchester bound traffic sticks to the line of Chester Road.  What do you think?

Dave’s Advertiser Column

I always look forward to election day whatever the outcome. I never forget how hard we the people had to fight for every man and woman to have the vote. Incredibly, it’s still less than 100 years since the battle was finally won for every adult to have a say in the running of their towns.

And as I reflect back at the outcome of Thursday I pay tribute to everyone involved, from the staff at the polling stations to the candidates and campaigners of all parties, and most particularly the voters. There were cheers and tears at the end of it all, and aching limbs, but I never forget how privileged we are compared to so many in this world.

Well the votes have been counted, so what was the verdict? Decisively, Trafford voted Labour. We won the most votes right across the borough. The people have given us a clear mandate to challenge these Tory policies that are proving so damaging: the privatisation by stealth of our NHS, the cuts to our Police and Fire services. We might still have a Conservative Council but Labour won the popular vote in Trafford.

So it is with renewed energy that we come out of the election and new Labour councillors in Sale Moor, Urmston and Broadheath.  We will be stepping up our work right across Trafford in our communities and alongside businesses to build our local economy, protect vital services and above all, to deliver a future for our youth.

David Acton
Leader of Trafford Labour Group