I'm pleased to have had so many responses to my last piece. In general, many have expressed agreement with many of the points I made but I also respect the views of those who didn't. I don't pretend for a moment that Denbigh high street will miraculously transmogrify in to a bustling retail centre overnight because it almost certainly won't.
What I am saying is that the present state of affairs represents far more of an opportunity than many people seem to appreciate. I understand that some people working in the public sector will seek alternative employment within the public sector elsewhere when the proposed mergers actually take place. That is up to them and will doubtless be dictated by their existing financial outgoings. But given that all Welsh councils are to be subjected to these cuts, they will presumably have to commute to England to find similar employment - if indeed similar employment is on offer. Whatever our political views of the cuts, the cuts are going to happen and those working in the public sector will be faced with some tough choices. I am merely suggesting that some of those people might forego the prospect of expensive commuting hours in favour of a lifestyle change and choose to stay more local. It will almost certainly mean a cut in their income but will paradoxically result in a better quality of life.
Also, it is difficult to gauge the effect on the local economy of the existing council employees in Denbigh and neighbouring Ruthin. One thing is patently clear. Both sites are housed very close to the two supermarkets who have done so much to exacerbate the prospects of the local high streets. It would be entirely logical and reasonable to assume that the real winners with respect to the current numbers of council employees are Tesco and Morrisons - but I would gladly stand corrected.
Citing the plight of the high streets of Denbigh and Ruthin is not nostalgic per se. I see the argument in more pragmatic terms. Why would I want to spend the money on petrol or diesel to go to Broughton (or wherever) or pay a delivery charge for internet shopping if the same item is available locally? I am the first to concede that not all items are available locally but concentrate on those items that are. I would rather pay a little over the odds on the paper for an item which is the same price as the internet or Broughton in real terms. At least that way, I am supporting my local economy with a local person in a local job. I can't see what's wrong with that. It just makes sense because I live here and want the best town possible on my front door step. If more people saw it in these terms, we would gradually see an end to vacant retail units on our high streets. The chances of an item being unavailable locally would become less and less likely and we would live in a thriving economic area. It's just possible that this would also impact on house prices too! Even if it didn't impact on house prices, it would do something far more important; it would give the next generation more reason to stay local rather than pursuing their careers over the border. Given that the size of the public sector is only going to get smaller as the shock waves of the global recession are still being felt, it makes sense to start preparing for that eventuality now. It is not nostalgic to aspire to eat produce which has been reared or grown within the locality either. I'd far sooner eat an apple or carrot or a lamb chop from the Vale of Clwyd for so many reasons. For one thing, growing or rearing it would have sustained local employment. In addition, it would not have had to travel half way around the world to get to my house. It would also take us back to eating produce in season rather than year round because Tesco says we can. If that sounds old fashioned, it probably is now - and more's the pity.
I certainly advocate the emergence of local independent business. With no share holders to pay, independent retailers are frequently very competitive when compared with their multi-national cousins. That is why I'd far sooner see a local independent move in to the former Woolworths site than a national player such as Home Bargains or B and M. The natural site for either of the latter would surely be the site of the former Kwik Save.
Finally, the town centre revolution needed to breathe fire back in to towns like Ruthin and Denbigh has to be achieved with minimal or no council involvement. The purpose of this or any council is to augment local communities. Theirs is not to lead. That is the role of the local community. There must come a point when we begin to realise the absolute limitations of State control be it national or local. Only then will we finally rediscover our old community spirit.
We pay our money and we take our choice as the old saying goes. Never has this been more pertinent for the people of Denbigh and Ruthin. We all have a choice. It is up to us which decision we make but we need to remember the consequences if we choose not to support. As Rob Parkes said in his response, "If people make the effort to open shops in the town we either use them or lose them..... that is the fact of the matter, harsh but true".
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Saturday, 25 January 2014
Denbigh High Street: Use it or lose it!
So goes the old saying, "You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink". Too true. This can easily be translated to the town where I live. Denbigh is like a template for so many other towns in our country today. A former market town whose ancient market is now the site of a supermarket. A supermarket sanctioned by the local council which has impacted far more on the town centre than they originally promised. A high street in extremis wondering how much longer it will be able to exist without life support. A quality selection of charity shops run by community volunteers. A quite staggering array of fast food shops. Two out of every five Denbigh residents work in the public sector. That is not only the highest proportion in the county of Denbighshire but is also one of the highest proportions of any town in the UK today.
News of the closure of Tiggs is therefore hardly surprising. I feel desperately sorry for the people who tried to make a go of it. We used the shop regularly and found the quality of the goods excellent and the staff fantastic. So why has it failed? What did they do wrong? I don't think they did anything wrong. Just like the plethora of pubs which also predominate our town, this shop was dependent on people walking through the door. That eventuality was ultimately dependent on local people using the high street. Going through the door of a pub or shop is one thing. Spending your money there is another. It is the latter which sustains local business.
If this piece sounds uncomfortable, I'm glad. If our high street is to have a sustainable future, people are going to have to be taken out of their comfort zones. I don't think Morrison's enjoys quite the same market share since the emergence of LIDL as a viable player. LIDL has just filled the long standing hole which emerged following the demise of Kwik Save. As many locals have said recently, Morrison's (like the other big supermarkets) is actually expensive. I am therefore amazed to see so many full trolleys whenever I have to go there given that we keep hearing about a cost of living crisis. Do a like for like shop in LIDL and see what I mean. The arrival of Morrison's killed our local green grocer although I'm pleased to see that the flower shop has since started to offer a few lines. The bakery which took over Alwyn Thomas' has also gone by the way side but again, not through anything they've done wrong. Once again, they were done for by Morrison's. I appreciate that the Co-Op is a factor in all of this but with respect, when was the last time you saw someone at the check out with a full trolley of shopping?
The shops on the high street can't just expect people to use the high street if they aren't good enough. But they are good enough and have been good enough. So why are the current 8,062 Denbigh residents turning their back on their own town? This does not include the 10,000 living in the surrounding villages who all need to use the town regularly. Is it because we don't have enough shops? Is it because we don't have enough well known national chains (only Boots and Holland and Barrett as I write)? Is it because parking a car is an issue? Is it because there's not enough choice to sit down and eat?
I think parking is an issue. Like it or not, we are firmly in the age of the motor car. People have become more sedentary. They aren't in the habit walking in the way they were years ago. Denbigh has an obvious problem. It is only flat for a very short distance on the top of town and there's really not a lot we can do about that. But consider this: It has had a borough charter since 1290 so why are the hills an issue now? Obviously, in those days people walked through lack of alternative unless they were sufficiently affluent to own a horse. So is the current factory ward car park sufficiently big, sufficiently well sign posted and sufficiently close to the main high street? I would argue that it is close enough for anyone. The current parking tariff of 10p for 30 minutes or 50p for longer needs to be abolished. There should be no barrier to people using the high street. The cost of employing someone to collect the current revenues is probably not cost effective anyway. If the existing tariff was removed, I wonder if the current car park would be big enough but that is a matter of conjecture. But one thing is for sure - it is not well sign posted. That is not an issue for locals because they all know where it is. It is an issue for visitors though and a friend of ours recently complained about this when he came to visit. That said, I suspect the majority of current shoppers on Denbigh high street are on foot anyway since so many people live within easy walking distance. Also, I always see plenty of available car parking spaces whenever I walk through that way.
When I was little, people could park along the middle of the road on Denbigh high street and for the life of me, I don't understand why that was ever dispensed with. They could have changed the system to emulate the current arrangement in Bala where people can pull in on either side of the road. They could also have done the really bold thing and just pedestrianised the high street. I feel the latter could save the high street. It would not be beyond the wit of man to go back to the idea of a by-pass starting at Lenten Pool which goes to the Industrial Estate.
Many people I speak to cite the internet as being the biggest threat to our high street and all the latest figures do point to a continuing growth in internet transactions. In a way, you can see why. People can often get a better price on line without the need to use expensive petrol or diesel to go and collect their goods. That is true but internet transactions do lack in other areas. For one thing, you don't get a face to face contact. For all the power of the internet, nothing will ever be as vital and powerful as face to face human contact. It is human contact which drives community. Cheaper prices do not drive community as enticing as they might be. In the world before the internet, the majority of shop keepers made a living. Mostly, they did not make a fortune because that was not their motive for keeping a shop. Their motive was to make a living and become a vital cog in their local community. If high streets like the one in Denbigh are to thrive again, two things need to happen. The local people must once more appreciate the fact that the high street has more to offer than corporate supermarkets or the internet. For their part, the local shop keepers must realise that their realistic potential is to make a living rather than a killing. To do this, they need to supply the existing needs of the population they serve.
I referred earlier to the so called cost of living crisis. It is a fashionable expression which bemuses me. It refers to the fact that many people have less disposable income now than when the recession first took hold in 2008. I also appreciate that there are a minority whose income is now less than their outgoings and know from my own experience how difficult that can be. Seldom has the abilty to budget been more important than in today's competitive world. But for those who can and do budget, there are arguably more bargains than ever for the shrewd shopper. If we really are in the depths of a cost of living crisis, I can only say that I've never seen so many cars on the road which suggests that the "crisis" may not be as bad as we are led to believe. In my world, the car has long since become a luxury item reserved for essential journeys. If more people were prepared to compromise on how often they choose to use their car, I suspect their disposable incomes would improve.
The pubs in Denbigh were once the epicentre of it's vibrant community. Compared to the crowds I used to see at the weekend, the pubs have seen their trade diminish in recent times. There are two possible explanations. The first suggests that people are drinking less and yet all the evidence points to the opposite in the over 25 age groups. The second explanation is that drinkers are drinking at home first in a bid to save themselves the expense of a night out. Fair enough. The problem is that the pubs are fighting a battle on a far from level playing field. Until such time as the supermarkets are reined in with their offers of cheap booze, the days of the pubs seem sadly numbered. When the playing field is once more level, the pubs will once more thrive and by inference, so too will the community. When we've had too much in the pub, there is a willing crowd of witnesses (community) on hand to remind us after the event. At home, no such crowd is on hand and for many, that can be the start of the slippery slope.
Towns in other parts of the UK have resorted to all sorts of novel ploys in order to regenerate their town centres. There are some who have initiated a town centre loyalty scheme complete with their own currency and reward points but I have my reservations about that approach. If the community is strong in the first place, we should not need to incentivise them to use their local shops. Incentivising customers is the domain of the big supermarkets and has been instrumental in their success. Think about it. If their prices were fair in the first place, why would they be offering us rewards to shop there. Unfortunately, many use them for the convenience of being able to park and get just about everything they needed under one roof. That is understandable but what is not understandable is the premium in price they are prepared to pay for the privilege.
One of the biggest attractions to me about shopping locally is the human contact. I am able to find out about local events. I am able to find out about real local issues which affect all of us. I can satisfy myself that I am supporting a local person in a local job usually in the private sector. If more people took this approach, there would be more local shops employing greater numbers of local people. They would also be offering a wider range of goods.
News of a proposed merger between Denbighshire and Conwy councils will undoubtedly result in numerous redundancies. Instead of seeing this as a threat though, we should be seizing the opportunity. This means that there will be a greater number looking to fill the existing jobs. Competition is never a bad thing because it serves to improve the existing offerings of local businesses. If the town once more begins to recognise the unique advantages of having a vibrant high street - and the vibrant community which goes with that - more shops will emerge to fill the existing gaps. This would lead to even more job opportunities. There are items which I can't get in Denbigh currently but that does not have to remain the case. That can change if demand increases. Having a burgeoning independent sector is the mark of a successful modern town. Such towns bring in the tourists because they become shining lights amid the gloom of general high street demise. At present, just 1 in 7 Denbigh residents is employed in retail. That figure is obviously made up of both full and part time positions. But that figure could be significantly increased if more local people got behind the town. I've often heard local people bemoaning the trend in which our young people end up leaving the area due to a lack of employment opportunies but it doesn't have to be like that. If we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always got.
I started this piece reflecting on the sad demise of Tiggs at the former Woolworths site. That premises is one of the biggest retail floor spaces in the town and we need to ask why Woolworths came to the end of the road. Although still missed by many, Woolworths was simply not supported by enough people. This was true of the people of Denbigh and just about every other town with a Woolworths branch in the UK. The point I make is that Woolworths was a big national player. We would be better served by an independent shop filling that gap preferably being run by a local person with a sound working knowledge of the local community. The location of Tiggs is also noteworthy because in many ways it is the start point of the Denbigh retail community if you are walking in to town from the Lenten Pool area (rumours of hoards of people walking in to town from Morrison's are yet to be corroborated!). All the more reason for the next occupier to be local and preferably supplying those goods currently lacking in the town. I've seen people suggesting national names like B&M or Home Bargains. Their product offering would certainly fit the bill but they are neither local nor independent. That said, either would be an improvement on yet another empty retail unit.
Any plans to breathe life back in to the high street in Denbigh ought to involve the one trump card the town has left to play. Although it has recently benefited from a new £600,000 visitor centre, Denbigh Castle is surely instrumental in bringing in visitors. I wonder if CADW could be doing more to promote this jewel in our crown? There is huge potential here and I don't think it has even been dented yet.
So what will become of Tiggs? In a way, I can apply the same question to the entire high street. Although it's an old cliche, if we don't use it, we'll lose it. Before we know it, the council will give planning consent to another of the big four supermarkets and the writing will be on the wall. In a piece last year, I cited three buildings which I consider vital to the rebirth of our once thriving high street. Nothing since then has altered my view. The cinema on Love Lane, the Church Institute and the Crown Hotel form a key triangle within which any regeneration will take place. I don't know if we'll ever have a cinema on Love Lane again (although the films at Theater Twm o'r Nant are excellent) but I see no reason why the other two buildings can't once more play an integral part in the life of our town. On a final note, I'm really pleased to see a conversation starting to emerge on social networks like this. This is a good first step because it shows that enough people actually care.
News of the closure of Tiggs is therefore hardly surprising. I feel desperately sorry for the people who tried to make a go of it. We used the shop regularly and found the quality of the goods excellent and the staff fantastic. So why has it failed? What did they do wrong? I don't think they did anything wrong. Just like the plethora of pubs which also predominate our town, this shop was dependent on people walking through the door. That eventuality was ultimately dependent on local people using the high street. Going through the door of a pub or shop is one thing. Spending your money there is another. It is the latter which sustains local business.
If this piece sounds uncomfortable, I'm glad. If our high street is to have a sustainable future, people are going to have to be taken out of their comfort zones. I don't think Morrison's enjoys quite the same market share since the emergence of LIDL as a viable player. LIDL has just filled the long standing hole which emerged following the demise of Kwik Save. As many locals have said recently, Morrison's (like the other big supermarkets) is actually expensive. I am therefore amazed to see so many full trolleys whenever I have to go there given that we keep hearing about a cost of living crisis. Do a like for like shop in LIDL and see what I mean. The arrival of Morrison's killed our local green grocer although I'm pleased to see that the flower shop has since started to offer a few lines. The bakery which took over Alwyn Thomas' has also gone by the way side but again, not through anything they've done wrong. Once again, they were done for by Morrison's. I appreciate that the Co-Op is a factor in all of this but with respect, when was the last time you saw someone at the check out with a full trolley of shopping?
The shops on the high street can't just expect people to use the high street if they aren't good enough. But they are good enough and have been good enough. So why are the current 8,062 Denbigh residents turning their back on their own town? This does not include the 10,000 living in the surrounding villages who all need to use the town regularly. Is it because we don't have enough shops? Is it because we don't have enough well known national chains (only Boots and Holland and Barrett as I write)? Is it because parking a car is an issue? Is it because there's not enough choice to sit down and eat?
I think parking is an issue. Like it or not, we are firmly in the age of the motor car. People have become more sedentary. They aren't in the habit walking in the way they were years ago. Denbigh has an obvious problem. It is only flat for a very short distance on the top of town and there's really not a lot we can do about that. But consider this: It has had a borough charter since 1290 so why are the hills an issue now? Obviously, in those days people walked through lack of alternative unless they were sufficiently affluent to own a horse. So is the current factory ward car park sufficiently big, sufficiently well sign posted and sufficiently close to the main high street? I would argue that it is close enough for anyone. The current parking tariff of 10p for 30 minutes or 50p for longer needs to be abolished. There should be no barrier to people using the high street. The cost of employing someone to collect the current revenues is probably not cost effective anyway. If the existing tariff was removed, I wonder if the current car park would be big enough but that is a matter of conjecture. But one thing is for sure - it is not well sign posted. That is not an issue for locals because they all know where it is. It is an issue for visitors though and a friend of ours recently complained about this when he came to visit. That said, I suspect the majority of current shoppers on Denbigh high street are on foot anyway since so many people live within easy walking distance. Also, I always see plenty of available car parking spaces whenever I walk through that way.
When I was little, people could park along the middle of the road on Denbigh high street and for the life of me, I don't understand why that was ever dispensed with. They could have changed the system to emulate the current arrangement in Bala where people can pull in on either side of the road. They could also have done the really bold thing and just pedestrianised the high street. I feel the latter could save the high street. It would not be beyond the wit of man to go back to the idea of a by-pass starting at Lenten Pool which goes to the Industrial Estate.
Many people I speak to cite the internet as being the biggest threat to our high street and all the latest figures do point to a continuing growth in internet transactions. In a way, you can see why. People can often get a better price on line without the need to use expensive petrol or diesel to go and collect their goods. That is true but internet transactions do lack in other areas. For one thing, you don't get a face to face contact. For all the power of the internet, nothing will ever be as vital and powerful as face to face human contact. It is human contact which drives community. Cheaper prices do not drive community as enticing as they might be. In the world before the internet, the majority of shop keepers made a living. Mostly, they did not make a fortune because that was not their motive for keeping a shop. Their motive was to make a living and become a vital cog in their local community. If high streets like the one in Denbigh are to thrive again, two things need to happen. The local people must once more appreciate the fact that the high street has more to offer than corporate supermarkets or the internet. For their part, the local shop keepers must realise that their realistic potential is to make a living rather than a killing. To do this, they need to supply the existing needs of the population they serve.
I referred earlier to the so called cost of living crisis. It is a fashionable expression which bemuses me. It refers to the fact that many people have less disposable income now than when the recession first took hold in 2008. I also appreciate that there are a minority whose income is now less than their outgoings and know from my own experience how difficult that can be. Seldom has the abilty to budget been more important than in today's competitive world. But for those who can and do budget, there are arguably more bargains than ever for the shrewd shopper. If we really are in the depths of a cost of living crisis, I can only say that I've never seen so many cars on the road which suggests that the "crisis" may not be as bad as we are led to believe. In my world, the car has long since become a luxury item reserved for essential journeys. If more people were prepared to compromise on how often they choose to use their car, I suspect their disposable incomes would improve.
The pubs in Denbigh were once the epicentre of it's vibrant community. Compared to the crowds I used to see at the weekend, the pubs have seen their trade diminish in recent times. There are two possible explanations. The first suggests that people are drinking less and yet all the evidence points to the opposite in the over 25 age groups. The second explanation is that drinkers are drinking at home first in a bid to save themselves the expense of a night out. Fair enough. The problem is that the pubs are fighting a battle on a far from level playing field. Until such time as the supermarkets are reined in with their offers of cheap booze, the days of the pubs seem sadly numbered. When the playing field is once more level, the pubs will once more thrive and by inference, so too will the community. When we've had too much in the pub, there is a willing crowd of witnesses (community) on hand to remind us after the event. At home, no such crowd is on hand and for many, that can be the start of the slippery slope.
Towns in other parts of the UK have resorted to all sorts of novel ploys in order to regenerate their town centres. There are some who have initiated a town centre loyalty scheme complete with their own currency and reward points but I have my reservations about that approach. If the community is strong in the first place, we should not need to incentivise them to use their local shops. Incentivising customers is the domain of the big supermarkets and has been instrumental in their success. Think about it. If their prices were fair in the first place, why would they be offering us rewards to shop there. Unfortunately, many use them for the convenience of being able to park and get just about everything they needed under one roof. That is understandable but what is not understandable is the premium in price they are prepared to pay for the privilege.
One of the biggest attractions to me about shopping locally is the human contact. I am able to find out about local events. I am able to find out about real local issues which affect all of us. I can satisfy myself that I am supporting a local person in a local job usually in the private sector. If more people took this approach, there would be more local shops employing greater numbers of local people. They would also be offering a wider range of goods.
News of a proposed merger between Denbighshire and Conwy councils will undoubtedly result in numerous redundancies. Instead of seeing this as a threat though, we should be seizing the opportunity. This means that there will be a greater number looking to fill the existing jobs. Competition is never a bad thing because it serves to improve the existing offerings of local businesses. If the town once more begins to recognise the unique advantages of having a vibrant high street - and the vibrant community which goes with that - more shops will emerge to fill the existing gaps. This would lead to even more job opportunities. There are items which I can't get in Denbigh currently but that does not have to remain the case. That can change if demand increases. Having a burgeoning independent sector is the mark of a successful modern town. Such towns bring in the tourists because they become shining lights amid the gloom of general high street demise. At present, just 1 in 7 Denbigh residents is employed in retail. That figure is obviously made up of both full and part time positions. But that figure could be significantly increased if more local people got behind the town. I've often heard local people bemoaning the trend in which our young people end up leaving the area due to a lack of employment opportunies but it doesn't have to be like that. If we do what we've always done, we'll get what we've always got.
I started this piece reflecting on the sad demise of Tiggs at the former Woolworths site. That premises is one of the biggest retail floor spaces in the town and we need to ask why Woolworths came to the end of the road. Although still missed by many, Woolworths was simply not supported by enough people. This was true of the people of Denbigh and just about every other town with a Woolworths branch in the UK. The point I make is that Woolworths was a big national player. We would be better served by an independent shop filling that gap preferably being run by a local person with a sound working knowledge of the local community. The location of Tiggs is also noteworthy because in many ways it is the start point of the Denbigh retail community if you are walking in to town from the Lenten Pool area (rumours of hoards of people walking in to town from Morrison's are yet to be corroborated!). All the more reason for the next occupier to be local and preferably supplying those goods currently lacking in the town. I've seen people suggesting national names like B&M or Home Bargains. Their product offering would certainly fit the bill but they are neither local nor independent. That said, either would be an improvement on yet another empty retail unit.
Any plans to breathe life back in to the high street in Denbigh ought to involve the one trump card the town has left to play. Although it has recently benefited from a new £600,000 visitor centre, Denbigh Castle is surely instrumental in bringing in visitors. I wonder if CADW could be doing more to promote this jewel in our crown? There is huge potential here and I don't think it has even been dented yet.
So what will become of Tiggs? In a way, I can apply the same question to the entire high street. Although it's an old cliche, if we don't use it, we'll lose it. Before we know it, the council will give planning consent to another of the big four supermarkets and the writing will be on the wall. In a piece last year, I cited three buildings which I consider vital to the rebirth of our once thriving high street. Nothing since then has altered my view. The cinema on Love Lane, the Church Institute and the Crown Hotel form a key triangle within which any regeneration will take place. I don't know if we'll ever have a cinema on Love Lane again (although the films at Theater Twm o'r Nant are excellent) but I see no reason why the other two buildings can't once more play an integral part in the life of our town. On a final note, I'm really pleased to see a conversation starting to emerge on social networks like this. This is a good first step because it shows that enough people actually care.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
Can't resign, Won't resign, Shouldn't resign - but who's who?
During the 1980s it was often said of the England cricket team that it was nigh on impossible to be dropped. Times have changed a little since those days but not by much. Considering they've just been thumped 5-0 by Australia in as pathetic a display as I can ever remember, precious few of the "star" players have been dropped.
But it isn't just cricket which stands accused of cronyism. In the latest development of the Andrew Mitchell "plebgate" story, the policeman who last week admitted to having lied to try and add substance to the "pleb" story, has had his offer to resign rejected. Instead, his superiors in the police have reserved the right to subject him to an internal misconduct hearing. There is no guarantee that such a hearing will result in his dismissal. That is just a possibility.
In the same week as the police have admitted that they are too insular and lacking in accountability, their time served arrogance seems alive and kicking. I appreciate that some will see this as quibbling but the facts don't merit further investigation. The officer has admitted under oath that he lied in a public office. Exactly what is there to investigate at a new hearing. His offer to resign ought to have been preceded by his immediate dismissal anyway. I can't see any other legitimate argument. He either has integrity or he doesn't. I can't believe that the police are allowed to operate in such a Stalinist way.
Contrast this story though with the Lord Rennard story. It's quite clear that an element within his own party want him expelled and are prepared to go to great lengths to get their man. They have already had a QC led inquiry which concluded that Lord Rennard had no case to answer. Because he has understandably refused to apologise (because he has always protested his innocence), they are now seeking another inquiry. Presumably, they will continue new inquiries until such time as he goes. This is just old fashioned hounding. Whether or not Lord Rennard has been guilty of the offences levelled at him is frankly open to conjecture because only his accusers and himself actually know. If a QC led inquiry failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I fail to see how a new inquiry will come to any other conclusions.
In March, Sir David Nicholson will retire from his post as Chief Executive of the NHS. Prior to that appointment, he had been Chief Executive of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority at the time of the North Staffs scandal at Stafford Hospital. At the latest count, there were five women accusing Lord Rennard of sexual harrassment. Accusations not proven as I write. Many accusations from many thousnads of people have been levelled at Sir David Nicholson. His reward for being in charge of the biggest health scandal of modern times? He was promoted to run the entire NHS. By 2011 he was claiming £50,000 in expenses on top of his salary of £200,000 with befits in kind of £37,600. At the same time, he was asking the NHS to trim it's budget by £20 billion by 2015.
On the way, Sir David (I must call him that I suppose) has remarried. A former intern on the NHS graduate scheme, his new wife has since become Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital. She earns a paltry £155,000 which must seem like petty cash compared to his salary.
So who would you throw out of the balloon?
1. The policeman who admits lying in a public office under oath?
2. The peer who refuses to apolgise for something he strenuously denies and which has been unproven by a QC led inquiry?
3. The outgoing Chief Executive of the NHS who oversaw the scandal at Stafford Hospital before being promoted to the biggest job in his organisation?
It looks as though the England cricket team of the 1980s became the template for British society in the 2000s - scary..
But it isn't just cricket which stands accused of cronyism. In the latest development of the Andrew Mitchell "plebgate" story, the policeman who last week admitted to having lied to try and add substance to the "pleb" story, has had his offer to resign rejected. Instead, his superiors in the police have reserved the right to subject him to an internal misconduct hearing. There is no guarantee that such a hearing will result in his dismissal. That is just a possibility.
In the same week as the police have admitted that they are too insular and lacking in accountability, their time served arrogance seems alive and kicking. I appreciate that some will see this as quibbling but the facts don't merit further investigation. The officer has admitted under oath that he lied in a public office. Exactly what is there to investigate at a new hearing. His offer to resign ought to have been preceded by his immediate dismissal anyway. I can't see any other legitimate argument. He either has integrity or he doesn't. I can't believe that the police are allowed to operate in such a Stalinist way.
Contrast this story though with the Lord Rennard story. It's quite clear that an element within his own party want him expelled and are prepared to go to great lengths to get their man. They have already had a QC led inquiry which concluded that Lord Rennard had no case to answer. Because he has understandably refused to apologise (because he has always protested his innocence), they are now seeking another inquiry. Presumably, they will continue new inquiries until such time as he goes. This is just old fashioned hounding. Whether or not Lord Rennard has been guilty of the offences levelled at him is frankly open to conjecture because only his accusers and himself actually know. If a QC led inquiry failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I fail to see how a new inquiry will come to any other conclusions.
In March, Sir David Nicholson will retire from his post as Chief Executive of the NHS. Prior to that appointment, he had been Chief Executive of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority at the time of the North Staffs scandal at Stafford Hospital. At the latest count, there were five women accusing Lord Rennard of sexual harrassment. Accusations not proven as I write. Many accusations from many thousnads of people have been levelled at Sir David Nicholson. His reward for being in charge of the biggest health scandal of modern times? He was promoted to run the entire NHS. By 2011 he was claiming £50,000 in expenses on top of his salary of £200,000 with befits in kind of £37,600. At the same time, he was asking the NHS to trim it's budget by £20 billion by 2015.
On the way, Sir David (I must call him that I suppose) has remarried. A former intern on the NHS graduate scheme, his new wife has since become Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital. She earns a paltry £155,000 which must seem like petty cash compared to his salary.
So who would you throw out of the balloon?
1. The policeman who admits lying in a public office under oath?
2. The peer who refuses to apolgise for something he strenuously denies and which has been unproven by a QC led inquiry?
3. The outgoing Chief Executive of the NHS who oversaw the scandal at Stafford Hospital before being promoted to the biggest job in his organisation?
It looks as though the England cricket team of the 1980s became the template for British society in the 2000s - scary..
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
A balloon debate
During the 1980s it was often said of the England cricket team that it was nigh on impossible to be dropped. Times have changed a little since those days but not by much. Considering they've just been thumped 5-0 by Australia in as pathetic a display as I can ever remember, precious few of the "star" players have been dropped.
But it isn't just cricket which stands accused of cronyism. In the latest development of the Andrew Mitchell "plebgate" story, the policeman who last week admitted to having lied to try and add substance to the "pleb" story, has had his offer to resign rejected. Instead, his superiors in the police have reserved the right to subject him to an internal misconduct hearing. There is no guarantee that such a hearing will result in his dismissal. That is just a possibility.
In the same week as the police have admitted that they are too insular and lacking in accountability, their time served arrogance seems alive and kicking. I appreciate that some will see this as quibbling but the facts don't merit further investigation. The officer has admitted under oath that he lied in a public office. Exactly what is there to investigate at a new hearing. His offer to resign ought to have been preceded by his immediate dismissal anyway. I can't see any other legitimate argument. He either has integrity or he doesn't. I can't believe that the police are allowed to operate in such a Stalinist way.
Contrast this story though with the Lord Rennard story. It's quite clear that an element within his own party want him expelled and are prepared to go to great lengths to get their man. They have already had a QC led inquiry which concluded that Lord Rennard had no case to answer. Because he has understandably refused to apologise (because he has always protested his innocence), they are now seeking another inquiry. Presumably, they will continue new inquiries until such time as he goes. This is just old fashioned hounding. Whether or not Lord Rennard has been guilty of the offences levelled at him is frankly open to conjecture because only his accusers and himself actually know. If a QC led inquiry failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I fail to see how a new inquiry will come to any other conclusions.
In March, Sir David Nicholson will retire from his post as Chief Executive of the NHS. Prior to that appointment, he had been Chief Executive of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority at the time of the North Staffs scandal at Stafford Hospital. At the latest count, there were five women accusing Lord Rennard of sexual harrassment. Accusations not proven as I write. Many accusations from many thousnads of people have been levelled at Sir David Nicholson. His reward for being in charge of the biggest health scandal of modern times? He was promoted to run the entire NHS. By 2011 he was claiming £50,000 in expenses on top of his salary of £200,000 with befits in kind of £37,600. At the same time, he was asking the NHS to trim it's budget by £20 billion by 2015.
On the way, Sir David (I must call him that I suppose) has remarried. A former intern on the NHS graduate scheme, his new wife has since become Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital. She earns a paltry £155,000 which must seem like petty cash compared to his salary.
So who would you throw out of the balloon?
1. The policeman who admits lying in a public office under oath?
2. The peer who refuses to apolgise for something he strenuously denies and which has been unproven by a QC led inquiry?
3. The outgoing Chief Executive of the NHS who oversaw the scandal at Stafford Hospital before being promoted to the biggest job in his organisation?
It looks as though the England cricket team of the 1980s became the template for British society in the 2000s - scary..
But it isn't just cricket which stands accused of cronyism. In the latest development of the Andrew Mitchell "plebgate" story, the policeman who last week admitted to having lied to try and add substance to the "pleb" story, has had his offer to resign rejected. Instead, his superiors in the police have reserved the right to subject him to an internal misconduct hearing. There is no guarantee that such a hearing will result in his dismissal. That is just a possibility.
In the same week as the police have admitted that they are too insular and lacking in accountability, their time served arrogance seems alive and kicking. I appreciate that some will see this as quibbling but the facts don't merit further investigation. The officer has admitted under oath that he lied in a public office. Exactly what is there to investigate at a new hearing. His offer to resign ought to have been preceded by his immediate dismissal anyway. I can't see any other legitimate argument. He either has integrity or he doesn't. I can't believe that the police are allowed to operate in such a Stalinist way.
Contrast this story though with the Lord Rennard story. It's quite clear that an element within his own party want him expelled and are prepared to go to great lengths to get their man. They have already had a QC led inquiry which concluded that Lord Rennard had no case to answer. Because he has understandably refused to apologise (because he has always protested his innocence), they are now seeking another inquiry. Presumably, they will continue new inquiries until such time as he goes. This is just old fashioned hounding. Whether or not Lord Rennard has been guilty of the offences levelled at him is frankly open to conjecture because only his accusers and himself actually know. If a QC led inquiry failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I fail to see how a new inquiry will come to any other conclusions.
In March, Sir David Nicholson will retire from his post as Chief Executive of the NHS. Prior to that appointment, he had been Chief Executive of the West Midlands Strategic Health Authority at the time of the North Staffs scandal at Stafford Hospital. At the latest count, there were five women accusing Lord Rennard of sexual harrassment. Accusations not proven as I write. Many accusations from many thousnads of people have been levelled at Sir David Nicholson. His reward for being in charge of the biggest health scandal of modern times? He was promoted to run the entire NHS. By 2011 he was claiming £50,000 in expenses on top of his salary of £200,000 with befits in kind of £37,600. At the same time, he was asking the NHS to trim it's budget by £20 billion by 2015.
On the way, Sir David (I must call him that I suppose) has remarried. A former intern on the NHS graduate scheme, his new wife has since become Chief Executive of the Birmingham Children's Hospital. She earns a paltry £155,000 which must seem like petty cash compared to his salary.
So who would you throw out of the balloon?
1. The policeman who admits lying in a public office under oath?
2. The peer who refuses to apolgise for something he strenuously denies and which has been unproven by a QC led inquiry?
3. The outgoing Chief Executive of the NHS who oversaw the scandal at Stafford Hospital before being promoted to the biggest job in his organisation?
It looks as though the England cricket team of the 1980s became the template for British society in the 2000s - scary..
Syria: Where next?
As I view the world around me, I am saddened by the events which are unfolding and search in vain for answers. When our Grandparents fought in the war and their parents in the Great War, I wonder if they would have done so if they could see the legacy of their sacrifice today?
The Arab Spring of 2011 has ended in Syria. The formula is a painfully familiar one. A Dictator who is willing to cling on to power at any price has resorted to the murder of the very people he pertains to represent. The civilised, democratic nations in the morally superior West pontificate and procrastinate while village after village of innocent people are remorselessly butchered by their despotic ruler. Truly, it is an absolute disgrace that this is being allowed to happen.
The current situation in Syria is a timely reminder of what happens to real people when war happens. Nobody ever wins and the human cost is tragic. It isn't just war either as evidenced by the recent events in the Philippines. I heard a marvellous quotation yesterday which was attributed to no less a person than the Dalai Lama. He is reputed to have said that "to be born and given life is the greatest miracle of all and the challenge is to decide how to make the most of that gift". Although this is so obvious in so many ways, it's not always apparent when we look around us.
In 2013, Syria just fought. Human life became a painfully cheap commodity and the world looked on wondering what to do. In spite of just about everyone else in the world being against military intervention in Syria, Obama seems to be caught in a trap. When he proclaimed that he would never stand by in the event of chemical weapons being used anywhere in the world, he rather laid himself bare to criticism. He'll be damned if he does intervene and he'll be damned if he doesn't - might have been better to keep quiet on the matter and keep his cards close to his chest. Speak in haste and repent at leisure...
Developed in the 1950s, vaccines against the polio virus were used to great effect to reduce the number of cases of polio. One of the most feared diseases of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, poliomyelitis bestowed a litany of health problems on the unfortunate people affected.
In 1988, there were 350,000 cases worldwide. By 2012, there were just 223 cases reported globally. It was sad but perhaps not unexpected then to observe that a polio epidemic is gaining momentum in war torn Syria. The irony is that the vaccine is given orally and is really easy to administer. It's heartbreaking to consider that such a simple solution is being denied to the children of that country due to the abhorrent behaviour of the adults. Polio is spread by the faeco-oral route so it's capacity to spread in a conflict such as this one is almost unlimited.
The Syrian regime seems resistant to peace as evidenced by their well documented targeting of voluntary health professionals. This goes against one of the oldest rules of war. To target voluntary medical personnel is unforgivable.
The Syrian situation is happening against the back drop of a power struggle in the Arab world. Such struggles are hardly new but the results are no less distressing. Thus far, Western powers have elected to stay out of it. The risk of such inaction was that terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda could move in with ease. They have since done so. The prospect of peace in Syria has consequently faded with the passing of each day. Just as a bacterium thrives on a defenceless host, the terrorists have thrived on a country in disarray. The only certainty is that there will be no winners. Whatever they achieve in Montreux at the latest summit, I wish them luck. Iran watches from the sidelines and the terrorists prosper. Meanwhile the innocent Syrian people are the real losers in more ways than we dare imagine.
The Arab Spring of 2011 has ended in Syria. The formula is a painfully familiar one. A Dictator who is willing to cling on to power at any price has resorted to the murder of the very people he pertains to represent. The civilised, democratic nations in the morally superior West pontificate and procrastinate while village after village of innocent people are remorselessly butchered by their despotic ruler. Truly, it is an absolute disgrace that this is being allowed to happen.
The current situation in Syria is a timely reminder of what happens to real people when war happens. Nobody ever wins and the human cost is tragic. It isn't just war either as evidenced by the recent events in the Philippines. I heard a marvellous quotation yesterday which was attributed to no less a person than the Dalai Lama. He is reputed to have said that "to be born and given life is the greatest miracle of all and the challenge is to decide how to make the most of that gift". Although this is so obvious in so many ways, it's not always apparent when we look around us.
In 2013, Syria just fought. Human life became a painfully cheap commodity and the world looked on wondering what to do. In spite of just about everyone else in the world being against military intervention in Syria, Obama seems to be caught in a trap. When he proclaimed that he would never stand by in the event of chemical weapons being used anywhere in the world, he rather laid himself bare to criticism. He'll be damned if he does intervene and he'll be damned if he doesn't - might have been better to keep quiet on the matter and keep his cards close to his chest. Speak in haste and repent at leisure...
Developed in the 1950s, vaccines against the polio virus were used to great effect to reduce the number of cases of polio. One of the most feared diseases of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, poliomyelitis bestowed a litany of health problems on the unfortunate people affected.
In 1988, there were 350,000 cases worldwide. By 2012, there were just 223 cases reported globally. It was sad but perhaps not unexpected then to observe that a polio epidemic is gaining momentum in war torn Syria. The irony is that the vaccine is given orally and is really easy to administer. It's heartbreaking to consider that such a simple solution is being denied to the children of that country due to the abhorrent behaviour of the adults. Polio is spread by the faeco-oral route so it's capacity to spread in a conflict such as this one is almost unlimited.
The Syrian regime seems resistant to peace as evidenced by their well documented targeting of voluntary health professionals. This goes against one of the oldest rules of war. To target voluntary medical personnel is unforgivable.
The Syrian situation is happening against the back drop of a power struggle in the Arab world. Such struggles are hardly new but the results are no less distressing. Thus far, Western powers have elected to stay out of it. The risk of such inaction was that terrorist organisations such as Al Quaeda could move in with ease. They have since done so. The prospect of peace in Syria has consequently faded with the passing of each day. Just as a bacterium thrives on a defenceless host, the terrorists have thrived on a country in disarray. The only certainty is that there will be no winners. Whatever they achieve in Montreux at the latest summit, I wish them luck. Iran watches from the sidelines and the terrorists prosper. Meanwhile the innocent Syrian people are the real losers in more ways than we dare imagine.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
Diabetes breakthrough - but where's the catch?
As a regular visitor to various social media, I frequently receive notification of the latest scientific breakthroughs. Occasionally, I read one which demands my attention and changes the way I think. This morning I read one whose implications on medicine could be profound.
The project is still in it's early stages but clearly has the potential to empower millions of patients living with diabetes. When I was studying my first degree, a lecturer for whom I retain the utmost respect was trying to educate our cohort on the realities of living a life with diabetes. He was trying to impress upon us the gravity of a diabetes diagnosis. To make his point, he assured us that in the end, the diabetes will have the last say. In other words, as sure as you like, the diabetes will eventually be the death of you - be that directly or indirectly. That message stayed with me and I have since seen countless patients who bare testament to his chilling assertion.
A recent report commissioned by the International Diabetes Federation claimed that the world was losing the battle against diabetes. Put simply, more and more people are becoming less sensitive to their own insulin. In order to try and manage their condition, they have to keep their blood sugar levels within quite tight limits. If the blood glucose gets too high or too low, the health implications can be severe.
The challenge facing these patients has been to monitor their glucose level regularly enough. As things stand, they have to prick their finger tips to get the drop of blood needed to test their blood glucose. We can only imagine how this would affect anybody having to be done twice a day for life. It has been a far from ideal solution to a massive problem.
Then this morning I read a paper which left me speechless. The quest to find an alternative body fluid for glucose measurement has been going on for years. The inventive people at Google (x) have been experimenting with a smart contact lens which will measure the glucose in tears by using a minute wireless chip and an equally small glucose sensor embedded between the two layers of the contact lens. Wow! If they succeed, this will transform the lives of millions overnight. No doubt, the finished article will cost the patient or their healthcare system quite a lot of money but compared to the cost of poor glucose control, this will be a small price to pay.
I have observed one potential problem though. There might be a tendency for people on the cusp of becoming diabetic to become complacent knowing that a less invasive solution exists to manage the condition better than ever before. I wouldn't like to think that anyone would be so bold but fear that some might. That aside, this has the potential to rival the discovery of antibiotics in terms of it's potential use to global healthcare systems.
This has been assembled by researchers at Google. It would be churlish to not to congratulate them on the ingeniousness of their idea. Whatever your misgivings about social media and search engine companies, they're not all bad and clearly have a great deal to offer.
The project is still in it's early stages but clearly has the potential to empower millions of patients living with diabetes. When I was studying my first degree, a lecturer for whom I retain the utmost respect was trying to educate our cohort on the realities of living a life with diabetes. He was trying to impress upon us the gravity of a diabetes diagnosis. To make his point, he assured us that in the end, the diabetes will have the last say. In other words, as sure as you like, the diabetes will eventually be the death of you - be that directly or indirectly. That message stayed with me and I have since seen countless patients who bare testament to his chilling assertion.
A recent report commissioned by the International Diabetes Federation claimed that the world was losing the battle against diabetes. Put simply, more and more people are becoming less sensitive to their own insulin. In order to try and manage their condition, they have to keep their blood sugar levels within quite tight limits. If the blood glucose gets too high or too low, the health implications can be severe.
The challenge facing these patients has been to monitor their glucose level regularly enough. As things stand, they have to prick their finger tips to get the drop of blood needed to test their blood glucose. We can only imagine how this would affect anybody having to be done twice a day for life. It has been a far from ideal solution to a massive problem.
Then this morning I read a paper which left me speechless. The quest to find an alternative body fluid for glucose measurement has been going on for years. The inventive people at Google (x) have been experimenting with a smart contact lens which will measure the glucose in tears by using a minute wireless chip and an equally small glucose sensor embedded between the two layers of the contact lens. Wow! If they succeed, this will transform the lives of millions overnight. No doubt, the finished article will cost the patient or their healthcare system quite a lot of money but compared to the cost of poor glucose control, this will be a small price to pay.
I have observed one potential problem though. There might be a tendency for people on the cusp of becoming diabetic to become complacent knowing that a less invasive solution exists to manage the condition better than ever before. I wouldn't like to think that anyone would be so bold but fear that some might. That aside, this has the potential to rival the discovery of antibiotics in terms of it's potential use to global healthcare systems.
This has been assembled by researchers at Google. It would be churlish to not to congratulate them on the ingeniousness of their idea. Whatever your misgivings about social media and search engine companies, they're not all bad and clearly have a great deal to offer.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
Mud slinging in the UK
Ahead of the European elections, it seems that UKIP alone have a party which can lay claim to something approaching unity. The others all seem to be fighting internal battles at the very time when they need to be looking outwards. When the public comes to vote (and very few of them will actually bother), they will gravitate to the party displaying the most unity and the party which best reflects their concerns. On this basis, I can confidently predict a resounding success for UKIP in the European elections.
The Liberals have been split in two over the Lord Rennard story. In the same week that Rolf Harris et al went on trial accused of various historic sex offences, the Liberals had their own anti-hero. Unlike Harris, Travis and Roache though, the case of Lord Rennard has not been dealt with publicly through the Crown Courts. Instead, the internal report by Alistair Webster QC came to the same conclusion of the Metropolitan Police twelve months ago; namely that he shouldn't be subjected to formal charges. The real point here though is that many senior Liberals have called for Lord Rennard to formally apologise to those women who have come forward to accuse him of improper conduct.
In his report, Alistair Webster QC admits that it is unlikely that the allegations could be established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Lord Rennard has been denied access to the report upon whose conclusions he is expected to apologise. With due respect, if that was you or I, we would want to see that report before responding wouldn't we? Why then should Lord Rennard be treated any differently? It isn't that I seek to demean the gravity of the accusations against him. The report has been carried out by a very experienced barrister and we may rest assured that he would have wanted to proceed further if he felt sufficient evidence existed to do so. It is therefore a little rich for Nick Clegg to twist the wording of the report conclusions to try and elicit an apology from Lord Rennard.
Let's turn this around and see how different it looks. The women who have made the claims against Lord Rennard have had their chance to present their account of what happened. How might they feel though if their accounts were questioned and how might they feel if they were asked to apologise for besmirching Lord Rennard? For all I know, all these women might be right in their accusations but the fact is that the report does not agree with them sufficiently to take matters further. The report was able to seek witnesses and interview all the parties involved. I reiterate, the report was conducted by a very experienced barrister. Maybe it's just me but it seems that a trend has emerged within national life whereby one person can throw mud at another without recourse to themselves. Throwing the mud is easy enough. Being held to account on it's truth and legitimacy is not quite as easy.
In the recent case involving Andrew Mitchell, this was the very strategy employed by the Metropolitan Police officers to successfully have him removed from his role as government Chief Whip. So far, one of their number has subsequently admitted to lying but only because the heat was turned on him to explore the validity of his accusation. He was happy enough to throw the mud and has now forfeited his career in the Met. Throwing mud is indeed easy but can also be very costly. The problem is that a great many seem to be getting away with throwing mud. That is a real issue. This might read like one of the most dull pieces you've ever read. That may be, but if you happen to be the subject matter, the discussion takes on a more serious look.
But back to the other parties. As I write, Labour continues it's internal squabble with the powerful unions who appointed Ed Miliband as their leader. Since his election as party leader, Miliband has made a series of promises aiming to curb the influence of the unions over the Labour party. Fine aspirations they may be but the real world is a different proposition. It comes down to power, of course. The unions are prepared to forego some of their electoral power but only if the MPs do likewise. The impasse could have been predicted by anybody. In the world of socialist politics, nobody will give an inch when it comes to power. The unions know that if they cede power, the Labour party will be about as socialist as the Tories. Hence, the intention of Miliband to reform the electoral college which will decide the next leader is the stuff of fantasy. As I say, fine aspirations but they don't stand a chance in the real world. We may rest assured that the Labour party will remain socialist to it's core. In all honesty, Red Ed has done little to counter this view since being elected anyway so it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. The most recent opinion poll in the Guardian suggests he is on course to incur the same fate as Neil Kinnock in the 1980s. Leading the polls during the Parliament doesn't count for anything. His challenge is to lead the poll on election night and that is beginning to slip away from him as the economy continues it's inevitable recovery.
So what of the Tories? Well, no news really. The election is their's for the taking but they seem as intent as ever on squabbling over European membership. This is now the solitary area which will ultimately cost them an outright majority. The economy looks to be back on track and for all the oprobium, George Osborne looks to be vindicated in his strategy of cutbacks. Unemployment is falling. Interest rates are at an historic low and the base rate remains at 0.5 %. Not a bad way to be entering the final furlong. But the question of European membership threatens to thwart their route back to Downing Street. UKIP and Farage are about as united as it is possible to be while the Tories continue their tribal infighting. It's hard to see what will change unless the British people are accorded their right and given a referendum. If the vote is a no vote and all the data suggests it will be, the Tory party will be split in two overnight with the Eurosceptics joining forces with UKIP and the Europhiles being left stranded.
Life in Britain seems as about as divided as it's ever been. When it comes to finger pointing, we're world leaders but when it comes to compromise we seem a little less adept. When it comes to looking at other people such as those in Syria and Egypt, we seem to have lost all sense of reality!
The Liberals have been split in two over the Lord Rennard story. In the same week that Rolf Harris et al went on trial accused of various historic sex offences, the Liberals had their own anti-hero. Unlike Harris, Travis and Roache though, the case of Lord Rennard has not been dealt with publicly through the Crown Courts. Instead, the internal report by Alistair Webster QC came to the same conclusion of the Metropolitan Police twelve months ago; namely that he shouldn't be subjected to formal charges. The real point here though is that many senior Liberals have called for Lord Rennard to formally apologise to those women who have come forward to accuse him of improper conduct.
In his report, Alistair Webster QC admits that it is unlikely that the allegations could be established beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Lord Rennard has been denied access to the report upon whose conclusions he is expected to apologise. With due respect, if that was you or I, we would want to see that report before responding wouldn't we? Why then should Lord Rennard be treated any differently? It isn't that I seek to demean the gravity of the accusations against him. The report has been carried out by a very experienced barrister and we may rest assured that he would have wanted to proceed further if he felt sufficient evidence existed to do so. It is therefore a little rich for Nick Clegg to twist the wording of the report conclusions to try and elicit an apology from Lord Rennard.
Let's turn this around and see how different it looks. The women who have made the claims against Lord Rennard have had their chance to present their account of what happened. How might they feel though if their accounts were questioned and how might they feel if they were asked to apologise for besmirching Lord Rennard? For all I know, all these women might be right in their accusations but the fact is that the report does not agree with them sufficiently to take matters further. The report was able to seek witnesses and interview all the parties involved. I reiterate, the report was conducted by a very experienced barrister. Maybe it's just me but it seems that a trend has emerged within national life whereby one person can throw mud at another without recourse to themselves. Throwing the mud is easy enough. Being held to account on it's truth and legitimacy is not quite as easy.
In the recent case involving Andrew Mitchell, this was the very strategy employed by the Metropolitan Police officers to successfully have him removed from his role as government Chief Whip. So far, one of their number has subsequently admitted to lying but only because the heat was turned on him to explore the validity of his accusation. He was happy enough to throw the mud and has now forfeited his career in the Met. Throwing mud is indeed easy but can also be very costly. The problem is that a great many seem to be getting away with throwing mud. That is a real issue. This might read like one of the most dull pieces you've ever read. That may be, but if you happen to be the subject matter, the discussion takes on a more serious look.
But back to the other parties. As I write, Labour continues it's internal squabble with the powerful unions who appointed Ed Miliband as their leader. Since his election as party leader, Miliband has made a series of promises aiming to curb the influence of the unions over the Labour party. Fine aspirations they may be but the real world is a different proposition. It comes down to power, of course. The unions are prepared to forego some of their electoral power but only if the MPs do likewise. The impasse could have been predicted by anybody. In the world of socialist politics, nobody will give an inch when it comes to power. The unions know that if they cede power, the Labour party will be about as socialist as the Tories. Hence, the intention of Miliband to reform the electoral college which will decide the next leader is the stuff of fantasy. As I say, fine aspirations but they don't stand a chance in the real world. We may rest assured that the Labour party will remain socialist to it's core. In all honesty, Red Ed has done little to counter this view since being elected anyway so it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. The most recent opinion poll in the Guardian suggests he is on course to incur the same fate as Neil Kinnock in the 1980s. Leading the polls during the Parliament doesn't count for anything. His challenge is to lead the poll on election night and that is beginning to slip away from him as the economy continues it's inevitable recovery.
So what of the Tories? Well, no news really. The election is their's for the taking but they seem as intent as ever on squabbling over European membership. This is now the solitary area which will ultimately cost them an outright majority. The economy looks to be back on track and for all the oprobium, George Osborne looks to be vindicated in his strategy of cutbacks. Unemployment is falling. Interest rates are at an historic low and the base rate remains at 0.5 %. Not a bad way to be entering the final furlong. But the question of European membership threatens to thwart their route back to Downing Street. UKIP and Farage are about as united as it is possible to be while the Tories continue their tribal infighting. It's hard to see what will change unless the British people are accorded their right and given a referendum. If the vote is a no vote and all the data suggests it will be, the Tory party will be split in two overnight with the Eurosceptics joining forces with UKIP and the Europhiles being left stranded.
Life in Britain seems as about as divided as it's ever been. When it comes to finger pointing, we're world leaders but when it comes to compromise we seem a little less adept. When it comes to looking at other people such as those in Syria and Egypt, we seem to have lost all sense of reality!
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Getting away with it
The worst kept secret in North Wales was revealed today. Denbighshire county council have hung the three leisure centres in Rhyl and Prestatyn out to dry. Although it is a somewhat crude analogy, it is said that a dog licks it's own bottom because it can. By a similar logic, our local council can pretty well do as it pleases. But think twice if you're considering protesting because a recent change to the law means that they also have the power to curb even a peaceful protest. Democracy?
In short, they have withdrawn funding to the not for profit company charged with running the three sites. They cite mismanagement and refer to the poor state of repair of the facilities. They decline to do anything about it themselves (there used to be a word to describe that sort of decision). Conveniently for the council, specific details of these alleged shortcomings are as yet thin on the ground but the residual £200,000 will be used to promote leisure, tourism and events for the coast. How does that sound to you? I'll be honest. Pending a statement from Clwyd Leisure (the not for profit organisation) on Wednesday, it seems like they've been sold down the river.
That same council has also announced the closure of the primary school in Llanbedr. Despite a previous call to the local community to express their reservations ahead of the forthcoming consultation process (foregone conclusion), they have announced the school will close at the end of August. This decision is odd because the same council has just granted planning permission for 70 new houses in the village. I would have thought the need for a primary school would be greater but perhaps I'm missing something.
The decision to cut Clwyd Leisure loose has been made just days after the council announced their plans for a new £10 million aquatic centre a stone's throw away from the existing sun centre. I wish I had a business which could afford to make decisions like that. I also wish I had a business which could afford to spend money like that with no accountability to anyone.
I know it's a long shot but I hope the Rhyl residents can find a way to come together to save the facility which has served them and countless thousands of holiday makers so well for so long. What galls me the most is the obvious waste of tax payer's money here. At a time when so many are whingeing about cuts, our local council seems happy to spend money like water. It just doesn't make sense and I find it morally wrong. Granted, the council will do as they please regardless of objections but that doesn't make it right. The most troubling aspect is the total lack of accountability. That is the country we now live in and the growth of this and other councils in recent times has created an out of control Frankenstein. A very sad day indeed.
In short, they have withdrawn funding to the not for profit company charged with running the three sites. They cite mismanagement and refer to the poor state of repair of the facilities. They decline to do anything about it themselves (there used to be a word to describe that sort of decision). Conveniently for the council, specific details of these alleged shortcomings are as yet thin on the ground but the residual £200,000 will be used to promote leisure, tourism and events for the coast. How does that sound to you? I'll be honest. Pending a statement from Clwyd Leisure (the not for profit organisation) on Wednesday, it seems like they've been sold down the river.
That same council has also announced the closure of the primary school in Llanbedr. Despite a previous call to the local community to express their reservations ahead of the forthcoming consultation process (foregone conclusion), they have announced the school will close at the end of August. This decision is odd because the same council has just granted planning permission for 70 new houses in the village. I would have thought the need for a primary school would be greater but perhaps I'm missing something.
The decision to cut Clwyd Leisure loose has been made just days after the council announced their plans for a new £10 million aquatic centre a stone's throw away from the existing sun centre. I wish I had a business which could afford to make decisions like that. I also wish I had a business which could afford to spend money like that with no accountability to anyone.
I know it's a long shot but I hope the Rhyl residents can find a way to come together to save the facility which has served them and countless thousands of holiday makers so well for so long. What galls me the most is the obvious waste of tax payer's money here. At a time when so many are whingeing about cuts, our local council seems happy to spend money like water. It just doesn't make sense and I find it morally wrong. Granted, the council will do as they please regardless of objections but that doesn't make it right. The most troubling aspect is the total lack of accountability. That is the country we now live in and the growth of this and other councils in recent times has created an out of control Frankenstein. A very sad day indeed.
A and E: Beyond the headlines
The recent statistics relating to waiting times at hospitals in North Wales make for sobering reading. Having just worked over Christmas and the New Year at one of them, I can assure you that the existing strain on our emergency departments is unsustainable. Being human, we all have our limit.
Pointing to a lack of doctors seeking a career in emergency medicine rather avoids the real issue. If you turned up for your first day of work in a factory and were offered your choice of roles within that factory, the majority would seek the least stressful because the instinct for self preservation is in all of us to a greater or lesser degree. This is one reason why the current system is spending more than ever on the more expensive option of locum doctors.
The issues are therefore numerous. Why is A and E deemed such an unattractive place to work? Why does it continue to get busier and busier? Why are we having to throw money at the problem in this way? Why are A and E experiences so variable depending on where you live?
Casualty departments have always been busy places but this has escalated somewhat in recent years for a variety of reasons. It is as much the lack of investment in Primary Care as anything else which has precipitated the current problems. Although it would be nice to imagine that all doctors have qualified out of pure altruism, that is simply not the case. They are health professionals. Professionals. They get paid for what they do and, I would argue, they get paid well. I don't deny the pressures upon them or the gravity of the decisions they have to make. The fact remains though that they are well paid for a job they chose to do. In life, we can't have things both ways. Where they choose to work within medicine is largely their choice and based on current figures, very few choose a career in emergency medicine. To suggest this is due to a lack of financial reward lacks logic. It is far more to do with anti-social hours, sheer work load and a cohort of demanding patients who regard the A and E department as their right.
If the UK invested properly in Primary Care as other countries do, this problem would be far less newsworthy. Talk of increasing man power in casualty departments rather avoids the real issue. A high proportion of people presenting to casualty departments do so as a last resort. If their local Primary Care offering was more robust, many of these patients would have no need to go to casualty. Our A and E departments are being used as a political football with the left bemoaning a lack of investment and the right adamant that their health care reforms are working. It is also important to highlight the negative portrayal of a career in Primary Care by our medical schools. The message is frequently, "Oh, you just want to be a GP?". It is not helpful. Here in North Wales, GP recruitment is a well documented problem but it would not take long to find out why that is.
I repeat, it is not bigger casualty departments that we need and nor do we necessarily need more doctors to work in them. In a recent piece, I highlighted the alarming number of people presenting to casualty departments needlessly. This is more down to a lack of education than anything else. Think about that for a moment though. Where were you educated regarding the reasons for presenting to an A and E department. Was it at school? I doubt it. Like me, you probably relied on the advice of your doctor (if indeed you had even been to see him/her) or the advice of your friends or family. People are thus just as inclined to present to their local casualty department based on peer advice as they are from the advice of their doctor. There is nothing wrong with peer advice provided our peers are well informed. But where were they informed?
This is why the time is overdue for a series of public information programmes on radio and television. I have seen posters in my local GP surgery but they should also be displayed on bus stops, in leisure centres (if your local council still deems your community worthy of one), in pubs and everywhere else where people congregate. I reiterate that the NHS by definition is a finite resource. It is free at the point of access for every man, woman and child. If we really want it to stay that way, we need to address public information and Primary Care investment with immediate effect.
That public information needs to be remind the public of their obligations in respect of this free service. Aside from reminding them of when it is appropriate to present to their GP or to their A and E department, it also needs to remind them about the value of a healthier life style. Not a Dickensian food regime per se. It needs to extol and promote the value of certain foods over others and to indicate what a healthy amount of food should be. It also needs to promote exercise now more than ever as a variety of devices continue to make us more sedentary in our daily living. If we're serious about the rising levels of obesity which will only impact more and more on the NHS, we need to say so. We need to be blunt if we have to be. To stand back and watch people reach their graves earlier than they need to is hardly the stuff of compassion - putting aside the financial arguments.
While investment in Primary Care is critical to address the root problems of many patients, the continued closure of community hospitals must be stopped immediately and the process reversed as quickly as possible. For rural communities in particular, community hospitals are a life line. It's important to recognise that a large district general hospital is not always the best venue for patients. We need to ask ourselves why it was that our community hospitals served us so well for so long? Put simply, they filled the need for those patients whose condition did not necessitate the attentions of a large hospital.
So the next time you see another headline about the A and E department in crisis, ask yourselves something. What could I do to help myself? When is it appropriate to go to A and E? Could my GP deal with this? Is my problem serious? Did I enjoy my last meal? Am I placing enough value on my health? This isn't a problem to be capitalised upon by the politicians. This is a problem in which we can all play a small part.
That said, the decisions being taken by local councils in North Wales are truly mind boggling. Ill thought out decisions to close care homes for the elderly will only ever end in tears. This is simple mathematics. By doing so, they reduce the bed space capacity in the community for this ever growing cohort of patients. It is a scandal that such a decision is being taken and an even bigger scandal that the general public are not being consulted for their opinions and ideas - they after all pay their council tax and value some services rather more than others. One of the reasons offered for such closures is that age old canard of cost. My local council alleges that a care home run by the Council costs £800 per resident. By contrast, the cost for the same patient in a private independent facility costs about £500 per week. There are only a finite number of inferences which can be derived from such a claim. Either the shareholder-driven independent homes are being run more efficiently or the council run homes are being run less efficiently. Of course, that over-simplifies matters somewhat but the inference is clear enough - and it is intended to be. The trend of local Councils farming out elderly care services to the private sector has been going on since the days of Thatcher. But neither does that it make it right. I'm afraid the figures of £800 and £500 are not based on fair comparisons - but I am not surprised. The power being assumed and abused by local Councils the length and breadth of the country badly needs reining in before irreversible damage is inflicted on a public who have become too afraid to voice their opposition.
Finally, when patients end up in our hospitals, it is time we addressed their nutrition more respectfully. To offer them pre-packaged food is frankly baffling. To have confectionary trolleys (however well meaning) sends out the wrong messages. This isn't hard. The recent edition of the food programme hosted by Sheila Dillon highlighted the great work being achieved by the Bristol Cancer Help Centre. Here, the head cook challenges cancer patients about the food they eat and the way they cook it. Having suggested we look at the link between what we eat and diseases such as cancer, she has been attacked by the mainstream medical establishment. She only sought to use patient nutrition to augment their medical treatment regimes. Since 2008, the medical mainstream has slowly been coming round to the idea of what is becoming something of a long playing record. The subject of hospital A and E departments yet again dominates media discussion today. While few can deny the strain currently being felt in our A and E departments, too few seem willing to explore the reasons behind this.
Pointing to a lack of doctors seeking a career in emergency medicine rather avoids the real issue. If you turned up for your first day of work in a factory and were offered your choice of roles within that factory, the majority would seek the least stressful because the instinct for self preservation is in all of us to a greater or lesser degree. This is one reason why the current system is spending more than ever on the more expensive option of locum doctors.
The issues are therefore numerous. Why is A and E deemed such an unattractive place to work? Why does it continue to get busier and busier? Why are we having to throw money at the problem in this way? Why are A and E experiences so variable depending on where you live?
Casualty departments have always been busy places but this has escalated somewhat in recent years for a variety of reasons. It is as much the lack of investment in Primary Care as anything else which has precipitated the current problems. Although it would be nice to imagine that all doctors have qualified out of pure altruism, that is simply not the case. They are health professionals. Professionals. They get paid for what they do and, I would argue, they get paid well. I don't deny the pressures upon them or the gravity of the decisions they have to make. The fact remains though that they are well paid for a job they chose to do. In life, we can't have things both ways. Where they choose to work within medicine is largely their choice and based on current figures, very few choose a career in emergency medicine. To suggest this is due to a lack of financial reward lacks logic. It is far more to do with anti-social hours, sheer work load and a cohort of demanding patients who regard the A and E department as their right.
If the UK invested properly in Primary Care as other countries do, this problem would be far less newsworthy. Talk of increasing man power in casualty departments rather avoids the real issue. A high proportion of people presenting to casualty departments do so as a last resort. If their local Primary Care offering was more robust, many of these patients would have no need to go to casualty. Our A and E departments are being used as a political football with the left bemoaning a lack of investment and the right adamant that their health care reforms are working. It is also important to highlight the negative portrayal of a career in Primary Care by our medical schools. The message is frequently, "Oh, you just want to be a GP?". It is not helpful. Here in North Wales, GP recruitment is a well documented problem but it would not take long to find out why that is.
I repeat, it is not bigger casualty departments that we need and nor do we necessarily need more doctors to work in them. In a recent piece, I highlighted the alarming number of people presenting to casualty departments needlessly. This is more down to a lack of education than anything else. Think about that for a moment though. Where were you educated regarding the reasons for presenting to an A and E department. Was it at school? I doubt it. Like me, you probably relied on the advice of your doctor (if indeed you had even been to see him/her) or the advice of your friends or family. People are thus just as inclined to present to their local casualty department based on peer advice as they are from the advice of their doctor. There is nothing wrong with peer advice provided our peers are well informed. But where were they informed?
This is why the time is overdue for a series of public information programmes on radio and television. I have seen posters in my local GP surgery but they should also be displayed on bus stops, in leisure centres (if your local council still deems your community worthy of one), in pubs and everywhere else where people congregate. I reiterate that the NHS by definition is a finite resource. It is free at the point of access for every man, woman and child. If we really want it to stay that way, we need to address public information and Primary Care investment with immediate effect.
That public information needs to be remind the public of their obligations in respect of this free service. Aside from reminding them of when it is appropriate to present to their GP or to their A and E department, it also needs to remind them about the value of a healthier life style. Not a Dickensian food regime per se. It needs to extol and promote the value of certain foods over others and to indicate what a healthy amount of food should be. It also needs to promote exercise now more than ever as a variety of devices continue to make us more sedentary in our daily living. If we're serious about the rising levels of obesity which will only impact more and more on the NHS, we need to say so. We need to be blunt if we have to be. To stand back and watch people reach their graves earlier than they need to is hardly the stuff of compassion - putting aside the financial arguments.
While investment in Primary Care is critical to address the root problems of many patients, the continued closure of community hospitals must be stopped immediately and the process reversed as quickly as possible. For rural communities in particular, community hospitals are a life line. It's important to recognise that a large district general hospital is not always the best venue for patients. We need to ask ourselves why it was that our community hospitals served us so well for so long? Put simply, they filled the need for those patients whose condition did not necessitate the attentions of a large hospital.
So the next time you see another headline about the A and E department in crisis, ask yourselves something. What could I do to help myself? When is it appropriate to go to A and E? Could my GP deal with this? Is my problem serious? Did I enjoy my last meal? Am I placing enough value on my health? This isn't a problem to be capitalised upon by the politicians. This is a problem in which we can all play a small part.
That said, the decisions being taken by local councils in North Wales are truly mind boggling. Ill thought out decisions to close care homes for the elderly will only ever end in tears. This is simple mathematics. By doing so, they reduce the bed space capacity in the community for this ever growing cohort of patients. It is a scandal that such a decision is being taken and an even bigger scandal that the general public are not being consulted for their opinions and ideas - they after all pay their council tax and value some services rather more than others. One of the reasons offered for such closures is that age old canard of cost. My local council alleges that a care home run by the Council costs £800 per resident. By contrast, the cost for the same patient in a private independent facility costs about £500 per week. There are only a finite number of inferences which can be derived from such a claim. Either the shareholder-driven independent homes are being run more efficiently or the council run homes are being run less efficiently. Of course, that over-simplifies matters somewhat but the inference is clear enough - and it is intended to be. The trend of local Councils farming out elderly care services to the private sector has been going on since the days of Thatcher. But neither does that it make it right. I'm afraid the figures of £800 and £500 are not based on fair comparisons - but I am not surprised. The power being assumed and abused by local Councils the length and breadth of the country badly needs reining in before irreversible damage is inflicted on a public who have become too afraid to voice their opposition.
Finally, when patients end up in our hospitals, it is time we addressed their nutrition more respectfully. To offer them pre-packaged food is frankly baffling. To have confectionary trolleys (however well meaning) sends out the wrong messages. This isn't hard. The recent edition of the food programme hosted by Sheila Dillon highlighted the great work being achieved by the Bristol Cancer Help Centre. Here, the head cook challenges cancer patients about the food they eat and the way they cook it. Having suggested we look at the link between what we eat and diseases such as cancer, she has been attacked by the mainstream medical establishment. She only sought to use patient nutrition to augment their medical treatment regimes. Since 2008, the medical mainstream has slowly been coming round to the idea of what is becoming something of a long playing record. The subject of hospital A and E departments yet again dominates media discussion today. While few can deny the strain currently being felt in our A and E departments, too few seem willing to explore the reasons behind this.
Monday, 13 January 2014
Playing with fire
The magic formula to determine the policies which will decide a general election remains as elusive as ever to our beloved politicians. It does not seem to stop them guessing though. Cameron's intention to bribe local government in to fracking is a case in point. It also throws up an interesting scenario or two.
The public remain justifiably suspicious of fracking following reports of water pollution and the potential for small earthquakes. But they know they must acquire their energy from somewhere and have limited means to do so. As the cost of imported gas continues to escalate, the government has at least negotiated the first hurdle. It has recognised the need for a financially viable alternative. The second hurdle is proving rather more difficult. To replace gas and coal power stations with fracking will just replace one set of fossil fuels for another. In this way, the government chooses to ignore the long term goal: sustainable, renewable energy.
Had it not succumbed to the groundless bribe of Miliband of a price freeze on domestic fuel, the government would now be sticking to it's guns on renewable energy. That is long term though and they don't have that sort of time before the next election. Such is their need to make fracking a voter friendly option, they have taken two steps which cause me no end of surprise. First, they intend to reward local councils with a share of the proceeds if they get on board. For a government which has just spent the best part of four years slashing the public sector, this is baffling. All the hard work is at risk of being undone. Second, they have not exactly rebuffed the advances of the French energy giant Total. Total wants to enter the great British fracking bonanza and frankly, who can blame them? Following in the foot steps of their fellow company EDF (who will build and reap the rewards from our next generation nuclear power stations), Total are wise to seek entry to the British market while it remains easy to do so.
Our relationship with Europe is a political question which just won't go away. The emergence of UKIP has guaranteed that it won't go away. Our relationship with Europe is the Marmite question. Few seem happy to remain on the fence and most have a strong view one way or the other. Clegg is consistently Europhilic, Farage is consistently Europhobic and it's frankly anyone's guess where the other two lie. But if France are gloating at the ease with which they have muscled in on our energy shambles, they have enough problems at home to temper such emotions.
Their unemployment rate is worse than the UK and Germany. 12% of the French remain out of work and the Socialist President has been exposed - if you'll forgive the irony. Being unmarried, his erstwhile First Lady finds herself in something of a predicament. Shunned publicly by media revelations of her husband's dalliance with an actress (it was ever thus), she must decide if she wants to cling on to her title and the ignominy which goes with it or jump ship and watch her beau sink. As the most unpopular French President since just after the war, he needs all the help he can get. His countrymen will be less interested in his personal life and more interested in whether he has any concrete plans for their abject economy. To be fair, he is not the first leader to be exposed in this way and I'm certain he won't be the last. What is interesting is that these people who use every trick in the book to get to the top are willing to risk it all like this. C'est la folie!
Immigration continues to attract the attention of the British voter. As ever, opinions are polarised and our European cousins queue up to condemn our xenophobia. For a country with a long history of immigration, it's sometimes difficult to understand why we get so worked up over it. By the same token though, neither are we a charity and we're right to place certain conditions on our access to welfare. That is reasonable enough. In a piece I wrote earlier in the year, I highlighted the attitude of the Hollande government in France to the Roma. Before the French get too high on their moral horse concerning our stance on immigration, they might want to review their own arrangements.
We have now developed a public sector whose size must be the envy of the socialist French President. We now pay salaries in excess of £100,000 to over 800 public servants - that we know of. The great irony is that this has been achieved under the jurisdiction of a Tory led coalition. These are strange times but it is obvious that the charades over the 2015 election are already in full swing. The former Labour advisor Alistair Campbell today claimed that Miliband wouldn't get a majority in 2015 so would need the support of the Clegg. Clegg will do deals with anyone if it means another few scraps of power. So too though will Nigel Farage - provided he is granted the one thing upon which he has spent the last decade campaigning. Give him his referendum and he'll probably shine your shoes for you. Will that prove too big a price for the Tory and Labour egos? Come the European elections in May, we'll all have a much better idea.
The public remain justifiably suspicious of fracking following reports of water pollution and the potential for small earthquakes. But they know they must acquire their energy from somewhere and have limited means to do so. As the cost of imported gas continues to escalate, the government has at least negotiated the first hurdle. It has recognised the need for a financially viable alternative. The second hurdle is proving rather more difficult. To replace gas and coal power stations with fracking will just replace one set of fossil fuels for another. In this way, the government chooses to ignore the long term goal: sustainable, renewable energy.
Had it not succumbed to the groundless bribe of Miliband of a price freeze on domestic fuel, the government would now be sticking to it's guns on renewable energy. That is long term though and they don't have that sort of time before the next election. Such is their need to make fracking a voter friendly option, they have taken two steps which cause me no end of surprise. First, they intend to reward local councils with a share of the proceeds if they get on board. For a government which has just spent the best part of four years slashing the public sector, this is baffling. All the hard work is at risk of being undone. Second, they have not exactly rebuffed the advances of the French energy giant Total. Total wants to enter the great British fracking bonanza and frankly, who can blame them? Following in the foot steps of their fellow company EDF (who will build and reap the rewards from our next generation nuclear power stations), Total are wise to seek entry to the British market while it remains easy to do so.
Our relationship with Europe is a political question which just won't go away. The emergence of UKIP has guaranteed that it won't go away. Our relationship with Europe is the Marmite question. Few seem happy to remain on the fence and most have a strong view one way or the other. Clegg is consistently Europhilic, Farage is consistently Europhobic and it's frankly anyone's guess where the other two lie. But if France are gloating at the ease with which they have muscled in on our energy shambles, they have enough problems at home to temper such emotions.
Their unemployment rate is worse than the UK and Germany. 12% of the French remain out of work and the Socialist President has been exposed - if you'll forgive the irony. Being unmarried, his erstwhile First Lady finds herself in something of a predicament. Shunned publicly by media revelations of her husband's dalliance with an actress (it was ever thus), she must decide if she wants to cling on to her title and the ignominy which goes with it or jump ship and watch her beau sink. As the most unpopular French President since just after the war, he needs all the help he can get. His countrymen will be less interested in his personal life and more interested in whether he has any concrete plans for their abject economy. To be fair, he is not the first leader to be exposed in this way and I'm certain he won't be the last. What is interesting is that these people who use every trick in the book to get to the top are willing to risk it all like this. C'est la folie!
Immigration continues to attract the attention of the British voter. As ever, opinions are polarised and our European cousins queue up to condemn our xenophobia. For a country with a long history of immigration, it's sometimes difficult to understand why we get so worked up over it. By the same token though, neither are we a charity and we're right to place certain conditions on our access to welfare. That is reasonable enough. In a piece I wrote earlier in the year, I highlighted the attitude of the Hollande government in France to the Roma. Before the French get too high on their moral horse concerning our stance on immigration, they might want to review their own arrangements.
We have now developed a public sector whose size must be the envy of the socialist French President. We now pay salaries in excess of £100,000 to over 800 public servants - that we know of. The great irony is that this has been achieved under the jurisdiction of a Tory led coalition. These are strange times but it is obvious that the charades over the 2015 election are already in full swing. The former Labour advisor Alistair Campbell today claimed that Miliband wouldn't get a majority in 2015 so would need the support of the Clegg. Clegg will do deals with anyone if it means another few scraps of power. So too though will Nigel Farage - provided he is granted the one thing upon which he has spent the last decade campaigning. Give him his referendum and he'll probably shine your shoes for you. Will that prove too big a price for the Tory and Labour egos? Come the European elections in May, we'll all have a much better idea.
Sunday, 12 January 2014
One bad apple? Shipman 10 years after.
This week will mark a decade since the death of Harold Shipman. He remains the only British doctor to be found guilty of murdering his patients. The legacy of his actions is still being felt today and will no doubt still be felt for many years to come. He singlehandedly changed the British legal standing on healthcare and medicine. A trial lasting two years found that he had been responsible for deaths of up to 250 patients, although the true figure will never be known.
He administered lethal doses of diamorphine to his patients before falsifying their medical records to give a more convincing picture of ill health. He had operated as a sole practitioner having opened his own surgery in 1993. With no partners to witness his activity, he was able to continue unchallenged before a local GP and a local undertaker became concerned at the high number of cremation requests being made by him. The police initially failed to send in the best people to investigate. Thus, three more lost their lives before the police eventually realised the enormity of what was going on.
While Shipman remains the only British doctor to be found guilty of murdering his patients, it does not follow that he has been the only one. He was caught. Other cases had been brought to court before Shipman but he was the first to be successfully prosecuted. The regulation which now dogs many health professionals in the UK is in no small measure down to Shipman. Given the seriousness of his actions, there could have been no other action.
Above all, Harold Shipman more than any other person has made us question the way we should practice and regulate medicine. That can only be a good thing because he could only have practiced in the way he did under a flawed system. The challenge was to identify and rectify the flaws. One of the flaws identified was the failure of local doctors to be aware or suspicious of his actions. The recent Francis Report in to the failings at Stafford Hospital recommended a duty of candour and the banning of gagging clauses. While candour was called for, only time will tell if it will be delivered. The gagging orders remain. There were other recommendations of course but for brevity, I'm just sticking to these two.
The gagging orders exist to ensure that employees don't speak out when they see or hear practices which they find disturbing. In 2013, it was reported that more than £2 million had been spent on over fifty such gagging orders. Given this information, it's difficult to see how far we've come since Stafford - never mind Shipman! The point is that life will always throw up the odd bad apple. The challenge is whether we want to deal with it or ignore the elephant in the room. These staff subjected to gagging orders are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. Divulge the information and they lose a lot of money. Obey the gagging order and the malpractice continues. Purists might argue that an altruist wouldn't give a fig for the money and would just divulge the information. As we all know, life is seldom that straightforward and it is all too easy to criticise them. It is though entirely justifiable to criticise those who enforce these gagging orders as this is wrong whichever way we look at it.
Such a system is hardly conducive to candour so I would suggest that the gagging orders need to be outlawed before we can reasonably expect the recommendations of Lord Francis to be adopted fully. As for Shipman, he got the ball rolling but I fear it still has some way to go ten years after his death.
Tomorrow will mark thirteen years since the guilty verdict was delivered to the carers of Victoria Climbie and we heard the usual promises from social services that this must never happen again. On Armistice Day 2008, two brothers were convicted of the murder of baby P. We can recommend all the improvements to care we like, but it seems that enforcing them remains the biggest challenge.
He administered lethal doses of diamorphine to his patients before falsifying their medical records to give a more convincing picture of ill health. He had operated as a sole practitioner having opened his own surgery in 1993. With no partners to witness his activity, he was able to continue unchallenged before a local GP and a local undertaker became concerned at the high number of cremation requests being made by him. The police initially failed to send in the best people to investigate. Thus, three more lost their lives before the police eventually realised the enormity of what was going on.
While Shipman remains the only British doctor to be found guilty of murdering his patients, it does not follow that he has been the only one. He was caught. Other cases had been brought to court before Shipman but he was the first to be successfully prosecuted. The regulation which now dogs many health professionals in the UK is in no small measure down to Shipman. Given the seriousness of his actions, there could have been no other action.
Above all, Harold Shipman more than any other person has made us question the way we should practice and regulate medicine. That can only be a good thing because he could only have practiced in the way he did under a flawed system. The challenge was to identify and rectify the flaws. One of the flaws identified was the failure of local doctors to be aware or suspicious of his actions. The recent Francis Report in to the failings at Stafford Hospital recommended a duty of candour and the banning of gagging clauses. While candour was called for, only time will tell if it will be delivered. The gagging orders remain. There were other recommendations of course but for brevity, I'm just sticking to these two.
The gagging orders exist to ensure that employees don't speak out when they see or hear practices which they find disturbing. In 2013, it was reported that more than £2 million had been spent on over fifty such gagging orders. Given this information, it's difficult to see how far we've come since Stafford - never mind Shipman! The point is that life will always throw up the odd bad apple. The challenge is whether we want to deal with it or ignore the elephant in the room. These staff subjected to gagging orders are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. Divulge the information and they lose a lot of money. Obey the gagging order and the malpractice continues. Purists might argue that an altruist wouldn't give a fig for the money and would just divulge the information. As we all know, life is seldom that straightforward and it is all too easy to criticise them. It is though entirely justifiable to criticise those who enforce these gagging orders as this is wrong whichever way we look at it.
Such a system is hardly conducive to candour so I would suggest that the gagging orders need to be outlawed before we can reasonably expect the recommendations of Lord Francis to be adopted fully. As for Shipman, he got the ball rolling but I fear it still has some way to go ten years after his death.
Tomorrow will mark thirteen years since the guilty verdict was delivered to the carers of Victoria Climbie and we heard the usual promises from social services that this must never happen again. On Armistice Day 2008, two brothers were convicted of the murder of baby P. We can recommend all the improvements to care we like, but it seems that enforcing them remains the biggest challenge.
Friday, 10 January 2014
A fait accompli in Rhyl?
The Machiavellian workings of Denbighshire County Council once more reared their ugly head today when plans were announced for a £10 million Aquatic Centre to replace the existing Sun Centre. Clwyd Leisure is the not-for-profit organisation which has been charged with running the Sun Centre with their funding slashed over the the last three years. In Council parlance, this translates to poor management at Clwyd Leisure. Convenient.
Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy of saying on the one hand that the Sun Centre must now make do with less money and then announcing a proposed £10million Aquatic Centre, the plans also include retaining the existing Sky Tower. This encroaches on pure comedy because the Rhyl Sky Tower has a "doughnut" designed to house people who can be elevated to the top of the tower to enjoy the view. That would be great if it actually worked. It is argued that the Sky Tower will augment the skyline for tourists visiting Rhyl. It will certainly generate conversation: "What's that tall structure?". "It's the Sky Tower". "What does it do". "Nothing". "Oh".
Given that the land where the Aquatic Centre is planned was previously subject to flooding, the Council has reached new heights this time. Meanwhile, if we meander along the front toward the Foryd foot bridge built at the small cost of £4.3 million, we find desolation. The site of the previous fun fair remains an eye sore and would be the only logical location for a project such as the Aquatic Centre - if indeed there was the demand. Not content with seeking to demolish the Sun Centre, the Council also aims to shut Rhyl Leisure Centre. If they funded the existing Sun Centre properly in the first place, this wouldn't even be under discussion. But this is now becoming a familiar tune. The Council has a hidden agenda and nothing is going to get in their way.
We saw this recently with their plans to close St. Brigids School in Denbigh. For the time being, the Council has been rebuffed but they will sit and wait for the protestors to simmer down before proceeding as they originally intended. A lion knows that if he waits until his prey is exhausted, the kill will be all the more easy.
I don't hear the Council making suggestions for the Children's Village but then I'm not surprised. The biggest waste of money in my lifetime would make the Council look stupid if they faced the music and closed it down. They don't need anybody's help to make them look stupid and are excelling given today's announcement. In the White Rose Centre, there is no toilet facility. In the Children's Village, you have to pay to use the toilet. The plans today for this wonderful Aquatic Centre make no mention of toilets but then that would be asking too much wouldn't it? How will the provision of toilet's impact on tourism? We all know the answer but the Council seems quite oblivious. If there is a facebook protest group, please send me the details and I'll join immediately. I, for one, will not make it easy for them to operate in this way.
Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy of saying on the one hand that the Sun Centre must now make do with less money and then announcing a proposed £10million Aquatic Centre, the plans also include retaining the existing Sky Tower. This encroaches on pure comedy because the Rhyl Sky Tower has a "doughnut" designed to house people who can be elevated to the top of the tower to enjoy the view. That would be great if it actually worked. It is argued that the Sky Tower will augment the skyline for tourists visiting Rhyl. It will certainly generate conversation: "What's that tall structure?". "It's the Sky Tower". "What does it do". "Nothing". "Oh".
Given that the land where the Aquatic Centre is planned was previously subject to flooding, the Council has reached new heights this time. Meanwhile, if we meander along the front toward the Foryd foot bridge built at the small cost of £4.3 million, we find desolation. The site of the previous fun fair remains an eye sore and would be the only logical location for a project such as the Aquatic Centre - if indeed there was the demand. Not content with seeking to demolish the Sun Centre, the Council also aims to shut Rhyl Leisure Centre. If they funded the existing Sun Centre properly in the first place, this wouldn't even be under discussion. But this is now becoming a familiar tune. The Council has a hidden agenda and nothing is going to get in their way.
We saw this recently with their plans to close St. Brigids School in Denbigh. For the time being, the Council has been rebuffed but they will sit and wait for the protestors to simmer down before proceeding as they originally intended. A lion knows that if he waits until his prey is exhausted, the kill will be all the more easy.
I don't hear the Council making suggestions for the Children's Village but then I'm not surprised. The biggest waste of money in my lifetime would make the Council look stupid if they faced the music and closed it down. They don't need anybody's help to make them look stupid and are excelling given today's announcement. In the White Rose Centre, there is no toilet facility. In the Children's Village, you have to pay to use the toilet. The plans today for this wonderful Aquatic Centre make no mention of toilets but then that would be asking too much wouldn't it? How will the provision of toilet's impact on tourism? We all know the answer but the Council seems quite oblivious. If there is a facebook protest group, please send me the details and I'll join immediately. I, for one, will not make it easy for them to operate in this way.
2015: The power of the 18-24 age group!
In so many ways, it is the young people who hold the balance of power in the UK today - and a good thing too. A generation has emerged knowing that the State will support them far less than any of their predecessors. No student grants for them. They must borrow £9,000 per annum to gain the degree which the current job market demands.
The young students in this and many other countries have always been found on the more radical edges of political opinion and the present crop is no different. Many a coach trip has been organised for students to travel to London to give vent to their spleen. Demonstrating in this way is admirable but soon lost as the resignation of age supercedes the passion of youth. Unfortunately, their propensity to demonstrate was not carried over to the ballot box at the last election. If they can learn the lesson in 2015, it is they who will hold the balance of power.
In the 2010 general election, only 44% of the 18-24 age group exercised their right to vote. This was in stark contrast to the 76% of those over 65. For the first time in 2010, we were treated to the spectacle of the political leaders engaging in live televised debates. The performance of Nick Clegg in particular resonated with the younger generation. Had they voted accordingly, the result of the last election might have been rather different.
Ironically, the decision of Nick Clegg in government to back track on his promise to abolish tuition fees went down like a lead balloon so they were perhaps wise not to vote in great numbers. That apart though, their voice does count and their numbers are considerable. Current opinion points to another hung Parliament. Whether this is a coalition of the Liberals with the Conservatives or Labour is of huge significance. That ignores the potential of UKIP to spoil the party. There remains one inescapable fact which makes the latter all the more pertinent.
The last time the British public were considered worthy of a say in their place in Europe was in 1975. This means that anybody born after 1957 has never been consulted on their view. That amounts to approximately 34 million people. That is about 70% of the voting population. That is utterly staggering. It is why UKIP can't be ignored. Regardless of their other policies, their absolute promise to grant us a new referendum sets them apart from all the other parties. The Conservative pledge is neatly wrapped up in ifs buts and maybes so carries no weight. The UKIP stance is beyond question.
Whatever your views on our place in Europe, it is now two generations since we have even been asked. For this reason, UKIP will garner far more votes than people realise. Granted, they will naturally prosper at this year's European elections. But it is their performance next year which will surprise many. They will take many votes from the Conservatives but will also take their fair share from both Labour and the Liberals too. It all hinges on whether they can convert those votes in to seats and I believe they can. This makes for interesting times.
The only coalition permutation which is difficult to imagine is a Liberal/UKIP partnership. Aside from anything else, the block votes will tend to stay with the Conservatives and Labour if only due to voting tradition. The polarity of UKIP and the Liberals with regard to Europe would also make such an alliance rather far fetched. The prospect of the Liberals making sufficient gains to hold the balance of power looks rather ambitious currently.
As the economy continues it's gradual rise out of the ashes of despair, the Conservatives will be keen to take credit for their policies. There will be 650 seats up for grabs - provided the Scots vote to stay in the Union. If they don't, their will be 59 less seats to fight over. More pertinently, it will dramatically reduce the chances of a Labour majority as they won 41 seats last time round north of the border. By contrast, the Tories only won 1 seat so would barely notice the difference. They would still need to secure a majority without Scotland though and that might not be as straightforward as they think. In 2010, they secured 306 seats including that solitary victory in Scotland. 305 seats would be enough based on a revised figure of 591 seats should the Scots elect to go their own way.
But will they hang on to that 305? One thing is for certain. If the 18-24 age bracket comes out to vote in the same proportion as those over the age of 65, dreams of a Tory majority will be over. Also, if UKIP take seats in 2015, somebody will end up having to negotiate with them and the Tories wouldn't want to be in that position. But what of Labour? If the Scots do vote for independence, Labour will need a miracle of biblical proportion to gain a majority south of the border. Last time, they secured 217 seats south of the border so would need to gain a further 79 seats to gain an outright majority. To achieve that, they would need to take all the Liberal seats and a great many Tory seats to boot. Unless Miliband produces a few unforeseen white rabbits, such an outcome is currently very unlikely. Unless of course the 18-24 age group comes out to play. If they do, such a majority starts to become rather more realistic.
This is why the outcome of the general election in 2015 will depend largely on who can best engage the young voters and persuade them to vote. If any Party leader connects with them, the 2015 election is there for the taking. We were told yesterday that this generation has their wits about them. They drink far less alcohol than their predecessors and seem far more engaged with the world around them. If they take that last bold step toward the ballot box, they will have the last say on the new occupant of Downing Street in 2015.
The young students in this and many other countries have always been found on the more radical edges of political opinion and the present crop is no different. Many a coach trip has been organised for students to travel to London to give vent to their spleen. Demonstrating in this way is admirable but soon lost as the resignation of age supercedes the passion of youth. Unfortunately, their propensity to demonstrate was not carried over to the ballot box at the last election. If they can learn the lesson in 2015, it is they who will hold the balance of power.
In the 2010 general election, only 44% of the 18-24 age group exercised their right to vote. This was in stark contrast to the 76% of those over 65. For the first time in 2010, we were treated to the spectacle of the political leaders engaging in live televised debates. The performance of Nick Clegg in particular resonated with the younger generation. Had they voted accordingly, the result of the last election might have been rather different.
Ironically, the decision of Nick Clegg in government to back track on his promise to abolish tuition fees went down like a lead balloon so they were perhaps wise not to vote in great numbers. That apart though, their voice does count and their numbers are considerable. Current opinion points to another hung Parliament. Whether this is a coalition of the Liberals with the Conservatives or Labour is of huge significance. That ignores the potential of UKIP to spoil the party. There remains one inescapable fact which makes the latter all the more pertinent.
The last time the British public were considered worthy of a say in their place in Europe was in 1975. This means that anybody born after 1957 has never been consulted on their view. That amounts to approximately 34 million people. That is about 70% of the voting population. That is utterly staggering. It is why UKIP can't be ignored. Regardless of their other policies, their absolute promise to grant us a new referendum sets them apart from all the other parties. The Conservative pledge is neatly wrapped up in ifs buts and maybes so carries no weight. The UKIP stance is beyond question.
Whatever your views on our place in Europe, it is now two generations since we have even been asked. For this reason, UKIP will garner far more votes than people realise. Granted, they will naturally prosper at this year's European elections. But it is their performance next year which will surprise many. They will take many votes from the Conservatives but will also take their fair share from both Labour and the Liberals too. It all hinges on whether they can convert those votes in to seats and I believe they can. This makes for interesting times.
The only coalition permutation which is difficult to imagine is a Liberal/UKIP partnership. Aside from anything else, the block votes will tend to stay with the Conservatives and Labour if only due to voting tradition. The polarity of UKIP and the Liberals with regard to Europe would also make such an alliance rather far fetched. The prospect of the Liberals making sufficient gains to hold the balance of power looks rather ambitious currently.
As the economy continues it's gradual rise out of the ashes of despair, the Conservatives will be keen to take credit for their policies. There will be 650 seats up for grabs - provided the Scots vote to stay in the Union. If they don't, their will be 59 less seats to fight over. More pertinently, it will dramatically reduce the chances of a Labour majority as they won 41 seats last time round north of the border. By contrast, the Tories only won 1 seat so would barely notice the difference. They would still need to secure a majority without Scotland though and that might not be as straightforward as they think. In 2010, they secured 306 seats including that solitary victory in Scotland. 305 seats would be enough based on a revised figure of 591 seats should the Scots elect to go their own way.
But will they hang on to that 305? One thing is for certain. If the 18-24 age bracket comes out to vote in the same proportion as those over the age of 65, dreams of a Tory majority will be over. Also, if UKIP take seats in 2015, somebody will end up having to negotiate with them and the Tories wouldn't want to be in that position. But what of Labour? If the Scots do vote for independence, Labour will need a miracle of biblical proportion to gain a majority south of the border. Last time, they secured 217 seats south of the border so would need to gain a further 79 seats to gain an outright majority. To achieve that, they would need to take all the Liberal seats and a great many Tory seats to boot. Unless Miliband produces a few unforeseen white rabbits, such an outcome is currently very unlikely. Unless of course the 18-24 age group comes out to play. If they do, such a majority starts to become rather more realistic.
This is why the outcome of the general election in 2015 will depend largely on who can best engage the young voters and persuade them to vote. If any Party leader connects with them, the 2015 election is there for the taking. We were told yesterday that this generation has their wits about them. They drink far less alcohol than their predecessors and seem far more engaged with the world around them. If they take that last bold step toward the ballot box, they will have the last say on the new occupant of Downing Street in 2015.
Monday, 6 January 2014
Have you found your Epiphany?
Although it's connotations are overtly religious, Epiphany is the day which celebrates the revelation that Christ was the human Son of God. Epiphany though has come to mean an event in someone's life in which their purpose is revealed to them. I wonder how many of you reading this have had such an experience?
For some it has come to represent the time when their vocation was realised be that in the church or in one of the caring professions. I remember reading the autobiography of Clarrisa Dickson-Wright in which she had reached her nadir with her alcoholism. It is said that people have to reach rock bottom before they can embark on their ascent out of addiction. For Clarrisa, she never looked back and her Epiphany was literally her salvation. Had she not changed, she would surely have died.
By my reckoning, I've had more than one Epiphany. As there is no limit, I don't think this makes me unusual. My first was in the late summer of 2004 when my wife asked me what I wanted to do with my life. After much thought, I eventually realised that I wanted a medical career. I knew I wanted to work in Primary Care because that was where I felt I could make the biggest difference. As I approach the end of my medical degree, that realisation is just as strong as ever. If anything, it is even stronger. I haven't earned a penny in the last ten years but have enjoyed every minute of my learning. It has taught me far more about myself than the subjects which I have studied.
My other great Epiphany was rather more in keeping with the religious type. After the death of my daughter Thea from meningitis in 2006, my first reaction was to turn my back on faith. There was no longer a place for God in my life. I have never known such grief and hope I never do again. After her funeral, we departed for Europe in a camper van for some space. It was the best thing we ever did. While in the French city of Chartres, we went to the Cathedral and lit a candle. Even at that point, I had still not yet had my Epiphany. Later on our trip, we arrived in Rome and like most tourists, headed for St. Peter's Basilica. It was at the foot of the giant statue of St. Peter that I had my second Epiphany. In an instant my faith was restored to me and I was once more at peace. I could write for the next decade and not be able to express what happened in there but I know what I felt and consider myself very priviliged.
As the world celebrates Epiphany, I hope you have found your own version. If not, I hope you find it like I did - when I was least expecting it. Happy hunting.
For some it has come to represent the time when their vocation was realised be that in the church or in one of the caring professions. I remember reading the autobiography of Clarrisa Dickson-Wright in which she had reached her nadir with her alcoholism. It is said that people have to reach rock bottom before they can embark on their ascent out of addiction. For Clarrisa, she never looked back and her Epiphany was literally her salvation. Had she not changed, she would surely have died.
By my reckoning, I've had more than one Epiphany. As there is no limit, I don't think this makes me unusual. My first was in the late summer of 2004 when my wife asked me what I wanted to do with my life. After much thought, I eventually realised that I wanted a medical career. I knew I wanted to work in Primary Care because that was where I felt I could make the biggest difference. As I approach the end of my medical degree, that realisation is just as strong as ever. If anything, it is even stronger. I haven't earned a penny in the last ten years but have enjoyed every minute of my learning. It has taught me far more about myself than the subjects which I have studied.
My other great Epiphany was rather more in keeping with the religious type. After the death of my daughter Thea from meningitis in 2006, my first reaction was to turn my back on faith. There was no longer a place for God in my life. I have never known such grief and hope I never do again. After her funeral, we departed for Europe in a camper van for some space. It was the best thing we ever did. While in the French city of Chartres, we went to the Cathedral and lit a candle. Even at that point, I had still not yet had my Epiphany. Later on our trip, we arrived in Rome and like most tourists, headed for St. Peter's Basilica. It was at the foot of the giant statue of St. Peter that I had my second Epiphany. In an instant my faith was restored to me and I was once more at peace. I could write for the next decade and not be able to express what happened in there but I know what I felt and consider myself very priviliged.
As the world celebrates Epiphany, I hope you have found your own version. If not, I hope you find it like I did - when I was least expecting it. Happy hunting.
The Ashes: An allegory for life?
I struggle to recall such changing fortunes as those experienced by the English cricket team in the last six months. They entered last years' home Ashes series against Australia as strong favourites. They duly won the five match series 3-0 although that scoreline was very flattering to them.
They have just completed about as pathetic a display as I can remember in losing the return series 5-0 down under. How do the fortunes of a team or country or organisation plummet so rapidly?
Any contest is decided by the relative merits and detriments of the two sides competing. Australia won this series hands down for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they had the greater fire power. In Mitchell Johnson they had a bowler capable of bowling at 95 miles per hour. England did not. Worse still, they did not have a single batsman capable of playing bowling of that speed. The scoreline didn't lie. Australia didn't need a batsman capable of playing such speed because England didn't have a bowler capable of bowling that fast. In a nutshell, that is how this contest was decided. There were other reasons of course.
As with the present Manchester United football team, there comes a time when winning becomes a habit. There also comes a time when winning is taken for granted and falls victim to complacency. It is therefore less to do with player salaries and more to do with player attitudes. As with the present predicament of the Manchester United football team, the current England cricket team made the mistake of believing their own hype. They have now paid the price. The most telling statistic for me was that their sole century came courtesy of the debutant Ben Stokes batting at number six. Stokes alone averaged over 30. If you take away the highest knock of Cook, Pieterson and Bell, neither would have averaged 20. Given that they each had top scores slightly north of 70, that is an appalling return from 10 completed innings.
Of the England bowlers, only Broad emerged with any credit. The rest were abysmal and carried all the threat of a cuddly toy. The England wicket keeper had a nightmare while the 36 year old Australian equivalent scored nigh on 500 runs averaging over 60. No comparison. The ageing English opening batsman Carberry scored a paltry 281 runs from 10 completed innings compared to the 36 year old Australian Chris Rogers who returned 463 runs with a crucial century. Going down the list of the two sides, there really is no comparison. Australia wanted it more and had a point to prove with a game plan to match. England had become complacent as evidenced by their obvious lack of a game plan.
This happens in all walks of life and we are all guilty at various times. When the UK economy was enjoying it's years of growth under Labour, they became complacent and took their eye off the ball. Since the crash, we have all been paying the price. That is the legacy of complacency. I read some political commentators writing as though the Coalition had a genuine choice to carry on borrowing their way out of trouble in the way their predecessors had. That is plain wrong. They had no such choice and it is frankly deceitful to suggest otherwise. If there were any doubt about this, they only had to look at Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal or Italy. As I write, France have refused to curb their borrowing despite several warnings to the contrary. Watch this space.
Our health service continues to attract a great deal of criticism for poor spending decisions and a poor record of clinical care. What we need to ask ourselves is how this situation arose in the first place? Complacency had set in and the the key decision makers within the NHS had taken their eye off the ball. It was interesting to read the suggestion of Owen Patterson last week. Echoing the points I made in a piece last year, he questioned the wisdom of ring fencing spending on the health budget. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Only when the decision makers realise that their resources are finite will they begin to approach their spending with more responsibility. With greater responsibility comes greater accountability. This results in better outcomes for patients and reduces the capacity for wasting valuable resources. Guaranteeing anyone an income will render them complacent sooner or later and the NHS is no different. Granted, their challenges are considerable as an ageing population continues to exert it's considerable toll on front line services. Proposals to charge patients for presenting to Casualty departments would be a grave error. This would result in penalising those least able to pay and compromise their health outcomes in the process. No, either the NHS stayas free at the point of access or we privatise it. It is either one thing or the other. We can't have it both ways. Penalising people for wasting time would be equally futile. Educating them how not to would be infinitely more sensible. Like the Australian cricket team, they would be better equipped and the NHS would be the winner. At the moment the contest has become one of almost insane firefighting akin to the English batsmen faced with the pace of Mitchell Johnson. I think the time has come to restore some parity to the contest between health provider and health service consumer. To achieve this, we must wave farewell to the days of complacency on both sides.(http://betweendenbighandkeele.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-dangers-of-ring-fencing.html),
They have just completed about as pathetic a display as I can remember in losing the return series 5-0 down under. How do the fortunes of a team or country or organisation plummet so rapidly?
Any contest is decided by the relative merits and detriments of the two sides competing. Australia won this series hands down for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they had the greater fire power. In Mitchell Johnson they had a bowler capable of bowling at 95 miles per hour. England did not. Worse still, they did not have a single batsman capable of playing bowling of that speed. The scoreline didn't lie. Australia didn't need a batsman capable of playing such speed because England didn't have a bowler capable of bowling that fast. In a nutshell, that is how this contest was decided. There were other reasons of course.
As with the present Manchester United football team, there comes a time when winning becomes a habit. There also comes a time when winning is taken for granted and falls victim to complacency. It is therefore less to do with player salaries and more to do with player attitudes. As with the present predicament of the Manchester United football team, the current England cricket team made the mistake of believing their own hype. They have now paid the price. The most telling statistic for me was that their sole century came courtesy of the debutant Ben Stokes batting at number six. Stokes alone averaged over 30. If you take away the highest knock of Cook, Pieterson and Bell, neither would have averaged 20. Given that they each had top scores slightly north of 70, that is an appalling return from 10 completed innings.
Of the England bowlers, only Broad emerged with any credit. The rest were abysmal and carried all the threat of a cuddly toy. The England wicket keeper had a nightmare while the 36 year old Australian equivalent scored nigh on 500 runs averaging over 60. No comparison. The ageing English opening batsman Carberry scored a paltry 281 runs from 10 completed innings compared to the 36 year old Australian Chris Rogers who returned 463 runs with a crucial century. Going down the list of the two sides, there really is no comparison. Australia wanted it more and had a point to prove with a game plan to match. England had become complacent as evidenced by their obvious lack of a game plan.
This happens in all walks of life and we are all guilty at various times. When the UK economy was enjoying it's years of growth under Labour, they became complacent and took their eye off the ball. Since the crash, we have all been paying the price. That is the legacy of complacency. I read some political commentators writing as though the Coalition had a genuine choice to carry on borrowing their way out of trouble in the way their predecessors had. That is plain wrong. They had no such choice and it is frankly deceitful to suggest otherwise. If there were any doubt about this, they only had to look at Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal or Italy. As I write, France have refused to curb their borrowing despite several warnings to the contrary. Watch this space.
Our health service continues to attract a great deal of criticism for poor spending decisions and a poor record of clinical care. What we need to ask ourselves is how this situation arose in the first place? Complacency had set in and the the key decision makers within the NHS had taken their eye off the ball. It was interesting to read the suggestion of Owen Patterson last week. Echoing the points I made in a piece last year, he questioned the wisdom of ring fencing spending on the health budget. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Only when the decision makers realise that their resources are finite will they begin to approach their spending with more responsibility. With greater responsibility comes greater accountability. This results in better outcomes for patients and reduces the capacity for wasting valuable resources. Guaranteeing anyone an income will render them complacent sooner or later and the NHS is no different. Granted, their challenges are considerable as an ageing population continues to exert it's considerable toll on front line services. Proposals to charge patients for presenting to Casualty departments would be a grave error. This would result in penalising those least able to pay and compromise their health outcomes in the process. No, either the NHS stayas free at the point of access or we privatise it. It is either one thing or the other. We can't have it both ways. Penalising people for wasting time would be equally futile. Educating them how not to would be infinitely more sensible. Like the Australian cricket team, they would be better equipped and the NHS would be the winner. At the moment the contest has become one of almost insane firefighting akin to the English batsmen faced with the pace of Mitchell Johnson. I think the time has come to restore some parity to the contest between health provider and health service consumer. To achieve this, we must wave farewell to the days of complacency on both sides.(http://betweendenbighandkeele.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-dangers-of-ring-fencing.html),
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Jimmy Page at 70
The 9th January will mark the 70th birthday of Jimmy Page. His importance in music can't be overestimated. Following the success and subsequent demise of the Beatles, the baton which had started with Elvis Presley in 1955 was once more up for grabs. The music world watched to see who would take up that baton. Jimmy Page was the man who did.
The sixties was the decade when rock and roll grew up. Bob Dylan wrote the soundtrack which would influence just about everybody who followed. The Beatles headed the British response and the Americans gave us the Byrds and the Beach Boys. The early sixties saw the growth of blues orientated music. Championed by the Rolling Stones, The Who and The Animals, the blues drew on the early bluesmen of the late 1920s and the 1930s. The guitar arrived as the tool of choice to showcase the blues. While Jimi Hendrix was the star player of that instrument, the band which became most associated with it was The Yardbirds. Their first guitar man left to form Cream, arguably the first of the so called supergroups. Eric Clapton was the man who first took the guitar to a new level in the '60s. His departure paved the way for the mercurial Jeff Beck. When Beck was good, he was very, very good but he also had off days and proved a rather unpredictable performer. It is grossly unfair that many British listeners continue to remember him for the gruesome "Hi Ho Silver Lining".
The Yardbirds bass player Paul Samwell Smith departed and the best session guitarist form the vibrant London scene jumped at the chance to join. It says a lot about Jimmy Page that he chose the Yardbirds because he could have walked in to any group he liked. He appreciated their reputation for guitar players and the vacant bass guitar role was a potential passport to lead guitar with the Yardbirds. He was right because he was soon playing dual lead guitars with Jeff Beck. The subsequent departure of Beck left Page with the lead guitar all to himself in the group most synonymous with it.
After just album, the singer Keith Relf and drummer Jim McCarty left and Page resolved to honour the existing tour arrangements with new personnel. The rest is history. Initially, they were billed as the New Yardbirds to cash in on the familiar Yardbirds name. That name had to be dropped for legal reasons and, in the month of my birth, the manager, Peter Grant, secured a record deal with Atlantic for the newly named Led Zeppelin. Music was never the same after that.
If the Beatles had dominated the '60s, the '70s belonged to Led Zeppelin from the moment that first album was released in 1968. Their sound was vibrant, dynamic and completely original. It spawned the heavy metal genre and while many sought to emulate, Led Zeppelin reigned supreme. The personnel in the new band gelled from the word go and under the direction of Page, their guitar orientated rock was received with open arms by the youth of America. In John Bonham, he recruited probably the finest drummer of them all. Their ability to fluctuate between light and heavy was largely down to the skill of their percussion man. To complete their rhythm section, Page turned to a fellow session man in John Paul Jones. Only John Entwistle of The Who was a finer player. It was ironically a joke shared between Entwistle and Keith Moon which provided Led Zeppelin with their name. Finally, he took on a young singer who nobody had heard of. In a short time, the name of Robert Plant was know to just about everyone.
Their first two albums were released in 1968 and 1969 respectively and were like a blitzkrieg. Neither album showed a glimmer of weakness and the songs were soon inspiring a completely new genre. Off the first album, "Dazed and Confused", "Communication Breakdown" and "Babe I'm gonna leave you" were unlike anything heard before. The second album just got better with songs like "Whole lotta love", "Heartbreaker" and "Livin' lovin' maid". Amazingly, the third album was considered a disappointment by the critics. More acoustic than the first two, it reflected the music scene at that time and still stands up as a magnificent collection. After the fourth album, superstardom was beyond question. For most people, this was the best and once again, a succession of incredible tracks jumped out.
Three days after my third birthday, Led Zepellin released their fourth album in three years. The first side alone is a like a resume of rock's finest tracks. "Black Dog" was followed by "Rock and Roll", "The Battle of Evermore" and the peerless "Stairway to Heaven".
Although they continued to record until the death of Bonham in 1980, by the end of 1973, their reputation was assured. In so doing, Jimmy Page had become the most influential guitar player of them all. Riff after riff bore testimony to his originality and skill. His legacy is undeniable and it's hard to think of a more influential musician of the last 45 years. Happy birthday to the master of the riff and the power chord, James Patrick Page.
The sixties was the decade when rock and roll grew up. Bob Dylan wrote the soundtrack which would influence just about everybody who followed. The Beatles headed the British response and the Americans gave us the Byrds and the Beach Boys. The early sixties saw the growth of blues orientated music. Championed by the Rolling Stones, The Who and The Animals, the blues drew on the early bluesmen of the late 1920s and the 1930s. The guitar arrived as the tool of choice to showcase the blues. While Jimi Hendrix was the star player of that instrument, the band which became most associated with it was The Yardbirds. Their first guitar man left to form Cream, arguably the first of the so called supergroups. Eric Clapton was the man who first took the guitar to a new level in the '60s. His departure paved the way for the mercurial Jeff Beck. When Beck was good, he was very, very good but he also had off days and proved a rather unpredictable performer. It is grossly unfair that many British listeners continue to remember him for the gruesome "Hi Ho Silver Lining".
The Yardbirds bass player Paul Samwell Smith departed and the best session guitarist form the vibrant London scene jumped at the chance to join. It says a lot about Jimmy Page that he chose the Yardbirds because he could have walked in to any group he liked. He appreciated their reputation for guitar players and the vacant bass guitar role was a potential passport to lead guitar with the Yardbirds. He was right because he was soon playing dual lead guitars with Jeff Beck. The subsequent departure of Beck left Page with the lead guitar all to himself in the group most synonymous with it.
After just album, the singer Keith Relf and drummer Jim McCarty left and Page resolved to honour the existing tour arrangements with new personnel. The rest is history. Initially, they were billed as the New Yardbirds to cash in on the familiar Yardbirds name. That name had to be dropped for legal reasons and, in the month of my birth, the manager, Peter Grant, secured a record deal with Atlantic for the newly named Led Zeppelin. Music was never the same after that.
If the Beatles had dominated the '60s, the '70s belonged to Led Zeppelin from the moment that first album was released in 1968. Their sound was vibrant, dynamic and completely original. It spawned the heavy metal genre and while many sought to emulate, Led Zeppelin reigned supreme. The personnel in the new band gelled from the word go and under the direction of Page, their guitar orientated rock was received with open arms by the youth of America. In John Bonham, he recruited probably the finest drummer of them all. Their ability to fluctuate between light and heavy was largely down to the skill of their percussion man. To complete their rhythm section, Page turned to a fellow session man in John Paul Jones. Only John Entwistle of The Who was a finer player. It was ironically a joke shared between Entwistle and Keith Moon which provided Led Zeppelin with their name. Finally, he took on a young singer who nobody had heard of. In a short time, the name of Robert Plant was know to just about everyone.
Their first two albums were released in 1968 and 1969 respectively and were like a blitzkrieg. Neither album showed a glimmer of weakness and the songs were soon inspiring a completely new genre. Off the first album, "Dazed and Confused", "Communication Breakdown" and "Babe I'm gonna leave you" were unlike anything heard before. The second album just got better with songs like "Whole lotta love", "Heartbreaker" and "Livin' lovin' maid". Amazingly, the third album was considered a disappointment by the critics. More acoustic than the first two, it reflected the music scene at that time and still stands up as a magnificent collection. After the fourth album, superstardom was beyond question. For most people, this was the best and once again, a succession of incredible tracks jumped out.
Three days after my third birthday, Led Zepellin released their fourth album in three years. The first side alone is a like a resume of rock's finest tracks. "Black Dog" was followed by "Rock and Roll", "The Battle of Evermore" and the peerless "Stairway to Heaven".
Although they continued to record until the death of Bonham in 1980, by the end of 1973, their reputation was assured. In so doing, Jimmy Page had become the most influential guitar player of them all. Riff after riff bore testimony to his originality and skill. His legacy is undeniable and it's hard to think of a more influential musician of the last 45 years. Happy birthday to the master of the riff and the power chord, James Patrick Page.
Friday, 3 January 2014
Another baby boom looming?
The Chief Executive of one of the largest energy providers has urged his customers to shower together in a bid to save money on bills. He also advocates playing Monopoly instead of boiling the kettle for a cup of tea or coffee. As far as consumer advice goes, this is going to get tongues wagging. They might not like the advice and nor would he if they took it on board.
In fairness, he also advocates switching off the television which isn't as daft as it sounds. The latter can only do more good than harm. The extent to which it has destroyed our society during the last forty years or so is beyond question. His advice also advocates turning the heating down in favour of a woolly jumper.
We have all become a little over used to our creature comforts in recent times. The danger here is that nobody likes having their comfort compromised. We have arguably lost sight of how far we've come and taken a lot of the advantages for granted. Here we have a Chief Executive of one of the much maligned energy companies giving us advice on how to use less. Only the harshest of critics could take issue with him for this.
There is a worry here though. If people are taking showers together and playing board games instead of watching television, birth control might become a big issue again. Put simply, this Chief Executive is advocating a change in lifestyle which will entail people engaging with each other again. That engagement might even have to become dangerously close to being physical in the quest to save fuel. Watch this space...
In fairness, he also advocates switching off the television which isn't as daft as it sounds. The latter can only do more good than harm. The extent to which it has destroyed our society during the last forty years or so is beyond question. His advice also advocates turning the heating down in favour of a woolly jumper.
We have all become a little over used to our creature comforts in recent times. The danger here is that nobody likes having their comfort compromised. We have arguably lost sight of how far we've come and taken a lot of the advantages for granted. Here we have a Chief Executive of one of the much maligned energy companies giving us advice on how to use less. Only the harshest of critics could take issue with him for this.
There is a worry here though. If people are taking showers together and playing board games instead of watching television, birth control might become a big issue again. Put simply, this Chief Executive is advocating a change in lifestyle which will entail people engaging with each other again. That engagement might even have to become dangerously close to being physical in the quest to save fuel. Watch this space...
Max Gerson: Born too soon?
The 250 million obese people in 1980 have now ballooned to 1 billion obese people. By any measure, that is an extraordinary judgement on the world we live in. We have seldom had so many people starving to death wondering if they'll ever get another meal and yet we've never had so many people literally gorging themselves to death. That is quite an indictment on our race. Humanity remains as elusive as ever.
We can derive several conclusions from these revelations. One concerns the evolutionary propensity of a human being. Humans seldom stop eating at the point when they have had enough. That is because these feelings are controlled by hormones over which we have precious little control. Ghrelin instructs us to carry on eating thus overruling the satiety centres in the brain. Leptin has the opposite effect but is over-ruled by the greedy ghrelin.
I had a friend whose dog perfectly illustrated this. The dog once ate an entire bag of dog food on the simple premise that is was there. He was very ill afterwards but went on to repeat this feat several times. No matter how ill he made himself feel, his instinct was to eat whatever was on offer until nothing was available. In many ways, that dog was not dissimilar to most humans.
Most of us eat more from habit than from a need to achieve satiety. Thus, millions of us are eating far more than we need all of the time. These are inescapable facts. Rarely, stories are encountered of humans on the other extreme of this picture. One such story came to my attention this morning. Just after the latest obesity figures had been announced, I heard the story of an Australian couple in their 60s who had just run one marathon every day for the past 366 days. They did so to promote a positive message about being responsible for your own health. Well, they've certainly done that because underpinning this extraordinary feat was a diet which would make most of us run a mile (if you'll pardon the irony).
Janette Murray-Wakelin and her partner are both vegans who only eat uncooked fruit and vegetables. By eating no meat, fish or dairy produce, they have put themselves in to an ever dwindling minority. Their endurance in completing their 366 marathons (not the erstwhile chocolate bars I hasten to add), was supported by a daily regime of fruit and vegetable smoothies and fruit salads. I can only say that the prospect of completing one marathon leaves me feeling weak so I am in awe of them both.
Their regime is not exactly new though. Max Gerson was a German born physician who died in 1959. He had pioneered the Gerson Therapy which still ranks as one of the most reviled regimes outside of mainstream medicine. His regime espouses hourly juices of organic, vegetarian origin. The regime allows the consumption of fruit and vegetables but precludes all fish, meat and dairy produce. A few years ago, I went to London to meet a lady called Beata Bishop. She had been diagnosed with malignant melanoma in the late 1970s and had eschewed the solutions of mainstream medicine for the largely unknown Gerson Therapy. She is still with us and continues to promote the benefits of a meat-free diet rich in fruit and vegetables. I would add that not everybody with cancer has beaten it using the Gerson Therapy. But then, that is not my point.
My point is that the incidence of obesity and the poor health which comes with it would be much lower if more people sought to moderate the amount they ate and, more pertinently, what they ate. We must remember that food manufacturing as we now know it wasn't around before the Industrial Revolution. So what did people eat before that? Well, it certainly wasn't ready meals and meat was something more reserved for celebration days as evidenced by the word carnival. The carnival was the day when people broke their fast and ate meat again. Just imagine that now. Plenty, myself included, forego alcohol in the new year, but not so many would be so eager to forego meat would they?
The counter argument to this states that people had shorter lives before the Industrial Revolution and indeed they did. There were no antibiotics. Surgery was more of a threat than a promise and a whole host of other medical advancements had not yet been thought of. Oh, and there were no cars then. This probably allowed them to live as long as they did because to get anywhere, the majority just had to walk. If that were the case today, the rates of obesity would once more plummet. There is good recent proof to back this up.
Amid the endless comment following the death of Margaret Thatcher, it is widely claimed that she played a significant role in the eventual demise of communism. Of course, such a claim can't yet be made as long as the curious state of North Korea continues in its current rather bizarre format. That said, she did indeed play her part along with Reagan and the Berlin Wall really did come down to the surprise of many in my generation.
This event was to have unforeseen consequences for an island in the Caribbean. Cuba had famously remained a communist state but had now lost the long support of the Soviet Union. Life was to become very hard indeed for the people of Cuba until about 2005 when the process of capitalism slowly began to creep in.
One of the consequences of this period in Cuban history may be crucial as a pointer for our dear old NHS. Put simply, times in Cuba were so hard that food quickly became a luxury. Over eating was not a choice because there was rarely enough. This resulted in a fall in waist sizes, heart disease, strokes and diabetes. The link between obesity and cardiovascular disease has of course been documented to death. The stark reality of what happens to the strain on healthcare systems has only emerged recently and the results are truly amazing. Cars became too expensive to run so the government was forced to invest in 100,000 bikes so that people could travel from A to B. An average loss of 5Kg per head over a five year period halved the death rate due to diabetes and reduced death due to cardiovascular disease by a third. The average Cuban between 1990 and 1995 expended more calories than they were able to consume. Thus we are provided with a really valuable example of how the global obesity epidemic can be addressed. To all intents and purposes, the Cubans had just adhered to sixteen years of something remarkably similar to the Gerson Therapy.
It is seldom that straightforward though. Even though the Cuban example shows us clearly the way to do it, there is one big snag. The Cubans did not have the choice to eat any more because there wasn't any more to eat. Unfortunately, the Western way of life means that we are often guilty of throwing away more food energy than what we expend through exercise - never mind what we actually eat.The key of course is choice. Choice is a wonderful thing in many ways but when is enough enough?
The haves and the have-nots have always been with us and the works of Dickens are particularly good at portraying them. While I'm quite sure that monetary divisions will continue to feature in our lives, I just can't find the moral argument to defend the fact that millions of children starve while grown men get paid more money than they could feasibly spend for kicking a football. What has become of us? Furthermore, nobody appears to be doing anything about this. Writing this will do nothing to redress this imbalance but it will at least make me feel a bit better.
It was Nietzsche who first predicted the advent of nihilism and his words have been fulfilled to the letter. When I attend my church, it is with a heavy heart that I see the steady progress of its demise. Doubtless in a generation or two, it will become a house, a museum or a community centre and the concept of faith a distant memory. The new God of money and materialism seems to have devotees by the million.
The headline of our local newspaper last week warned "use it or lose it" in reference to community pubs. I was struck immediately by the common thread which the pub and the church share. They have both been places of great importance in the community because they were meeting places for the people. However, they have not been replaced by a new form of meeting place but rather virtual meeting places. Can social networking sites really replace the function served by these two former pillars of our communities? Their proponents would doubtless point to the Arab Spring in which a vast swathe of North Africa was gripped by the need for social change after centuries of oppression. Perhaps this argument carries weight but it is instructive to remember that these countries have thriving churches and although alcohol is forbidden, their elders meet regularly in cafes to discuss their problems. Hence, in spite of the populist view that such countries need to adopt democracy and catch up with the developed world, I am increasingly of the view that the converse could hardly be more true. In such countries, the model of the family predominates society while our model continues to crumble and fragment like a piece of sandstone.
We in the UK have just enjoyed four decades of uninterrupted growth and standards of living which our forebears would not have even imagined. Yet still we want more. Is there no limit to the extent of our greed. I look around me and never have to look for my next meal. I am never cold and never in need of clothing. I can't even comprehend the lives of most of the people with whom I share this strange planet. Our grandfathers gave their lives in the two world wars so that the next generation would not have to face such horrors. However, I feel that their sacrifice was in vain because if they could see us now, I don't think they'd do it all again - and I for one wouldn't blame them if they didn't.
It is interesting to consider the political ideologies which polarised the world as a consequence of the World Wars. On the one hand Communism espoused equality for all while Capitalism espoused opportunity for all. With only North Korea and Cuba left as the only true Communist nations, it would be fair to conclude that this ideology was fundamentally flawed. However, compared to its Capitalist nemesis, Communism has been a roaring success. Capitalism has been a disaster for millions of us as evidenced by recent developments in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and Italy to name but a few. All these countries have been living off overdrafts the magnitude of which they couldn't hope to repay.
Could it be that a third way exists which has not yet been espoused? For the sake of us all, I sincerely hope so because I'm not sure I like what I see around me. Perhaps Dickens was just trying to tell us through the mouthpiece of Mr. Micawber and friends to give us all an insight into what the future could be. Never did he do this to better effect than with the three ghosts who visited Scrooge upon that fateful Christmas Eve. Perhaps like Scrooge we will all wake up and turn over a new leaf. Perhaps we will all start to remember those around us instead of looking after number one. Perhaps a football club winning a trophy might not be so important after all and perhaps we will feel personal responsibility for the plight of our fellow man. Perhaps we won't need to be guided by Public School educated politicians on the payroll of greedy Antipodeans desperate to extract our money from us. Maybe we can all learn to just count our blessings and be truly grateful for what we have rather than what we have not.
But back to Max Gerson. I do not suggest as he did that his Gerson Therapy was a credible cure for cancer. That would be fanciful. His fundamental argument though was sound. We are eating too much food. Too much of what we are eating is the wrong stuff and we are taking far too little exercise. Much as the medical establishment despises Max Gerson, they would do well to consider the basic message of this regime. If they did, the current challenges to world health would be radically cut. Taxing unhealthy food is not the answer. Educating people about the right food will be infinitely more effective. We have a big problem. We have continued to promote a food retail structure which actively promotes most of the very foods which we should be seeking to restrict in our diets. The food retail sector is now massive providing employment for millions. Solving that problem is the key to addressing our existing challenges to health.
We can derive several conclusions from these revelations. One concerns the evolutionary propensity of a human being. Humans seldom stop eating at the point when they have had enough. That is because these feelings are controlled by hormones over which we have precious little control. Ghrelin instructs us to carry on eating thus overruling the satiety centres in the brain. Leptin has the opposite effect but is over-ruled by the greedy ghrelin.
I had a friend whose dog perfectly illustrated this. The dog once ate an entire bag of dog food on the simple premise that is was there. He was very ill afterwards but went on to repeat this feat several times. No matter how ill he made himself feel, his instinct was to eat whatever was on offer until nothing was available. In many ways, that dog was not dissimilar to most humans.
Most of us eat more from habit than from a need to achieve satiety. Thus, millions of us are eating far more than we need all of the time. These are inescapable facts. Rarely, stories are encountered of humans on the other extreme of this picture. One such story came to my attention this morning. Just after the latest obesity figures had been announced, I heard the story of an Australian couple in their 60s who had just run one marathon every day for the past 366 days. They did so to promote a positive message about being responsible for your own health. Well, they've certainly done that because underpinning this extraordinary feat was a diet which would make most of us run a mile (if you'll pardon the irony).
Janette Murray-Wakelin and her partner are both vegans who only eat uncooked fruit and vegetables. By eating no meat, fish or dairy produce, they have put themselves in to an ever dwindling minority. Their endurance in completing their 366 marathons (not the erstwhile chocolate bars I hasten to add), was supported by a daily regime of fruit and vegetable smoothies and fruit salads. I can only say that the prospect of completing one marathon leaves me feeling weak so I am in awe of them both.
Their regime is not exactly new though. Max Gerson was a German born physician who died in 1959. He had pioneered the Gerson Therapy which still ranks as one of the most reviled regimes outside of mainstream medicine. His regime espouses hourly juices of organic, vegetarian origin. The regime allows the consumption of fruit and vegetables but precludes all fish, meat and dairy produce. A few years ago, I went to London to meet a lady called Beata Bishop. She had been diagnosed with malignant melanoma in the late 1970s and had eschewed the solutions of mainstream medicine for the largely unknown Gerson Therapy. She is still with us and continues to promote the benefits of a meat-free diet rich in fruit and vegetables. I would add that not everybody with cancer has beaten it using the Gerson Therapy. But then, that is not my point.
My point is that the incidence of obesity and the poor health which comes with it would be much lower if more people sought to moderate the amount they ate and, more pertinently, what they ate. We must remember that food manufacturing as we now know it wasn't around before the Industrial Revolution. So what did people eat before that? Well, it certainly wasn't ready meals and meat was something more reserved for celebration days as evidenced by the word carnival. The carnival was the day when people broke their fast and ate meat again. Just imagine that now. Plenty, myself included, forego alcohol in the new year, but not so many would be so eager to forego meat would they?
The counter argument to this states that people had shorter lives before the Industrial Revolution and indeed they did. There were no antibiotics. Surgery was more of a threat than a promise and a whole host of other medical advancements had not yet been thought of. Oh, and there were no cars then. This probably allowed them to live as long as they did because to get anywhere, the majority just had to walk. If that were the case today, the rates of obesity would once more plummet. There is good recent proof to back this up.
Amid the endless comment following the death of Margaret Thatcher, it is widely claimed that she played a significant role in the eventual demise of communism. Of course, such a claim can't yet be made as long as the curious state of North Korea continues in its current rather bizarre format. That said, she did indeed play her part along with Reagan and the Berlin Wall really did come down to the surprise of many in my generation.
This event was to have unforeseen consequences for an island in the Caribbean. Cuba had famously remained a communist state but had now lost the long support of the Soviet Union. Life was to become very hard indeed for the people of Cuba until about 2005 when the process of capitalism slowly began to creep in.
One of the consequences of this period in Cuban history may be crucial as a pointer for our dear old NHS. Put simply, times in Cuba were so hard that food quickly became a luxury. Over eating was not a choice because there was rarely enough. This resulted in a fall in waist sizes, heart disease, strokes and diabetes. The link between obesity and cardiovascular disease has of course been documented to death. The stark reality of what happens to the strain on healthcare systems has only emerged recently and the results are truly amazing. Cars became too expensive to run so the government was forced to invest in 100,000 bikes so that people could travel from A to B. An average loss of 5Kg per head over a five year period halved the death rate due to diabetes and reduced death due to cardiovascular disease by a third. The average Cuban between 1990 and 1995 expended more calories than they were able to consume. Thus we are provided with a really valuable example of how the global obesity epidemic can be addressed. To all intents and purposes, the Cubans had just adhered to sixteen years of something remarkably similar to the Gerson Therapy.
It is seldom that straightforward though. Even though the Cuban example shows us clearly the way to do it, there is one big snag. The Cubans did not have the choice to eat any more because there wasn't any more to eat. Unfortunately, the Western way of life means that we are often guilty of throwing away more food energy than what we expend through exercise - never mind what we actually eat.The key of course is choice. Choice is a wonderful thing in many ways but when is enough enough?
The haves and the have-nots have always been with us and the works of Dickens are particularly good at portraying them. While I'm quite sure that monetary divisions will continue to feature in our lives, I just can't find the moral argument to defend the fact that millions of children starve while grown men get paid more money than they could feasibly spend for kicking a football. What has become of us? Furthermore, nobody appears to be doing anything about this. Writing this will do nothing to redress this imbalance but it will at least make me feel a bit better.
It was Nietzsche who first predicted the advent of nihilism and his words have been fulfilled to the letter. When I attend my church, it is with a heavy heart that I see the steady progress of its demise. Doubtless in a generation or two, it will become a house, a museum or a community centre and the concept of faith a distant memory. The new God of money and materialism seems to have devotees by the million.
The headline of our local newspaper last week warned "use it or lose it" in reference to community pubs. I was struck immediately by the common thread which the pub and the church share. They have both been places of great importance in the community because they were meeting places for the people. However, they have not been replaced by a new form of meeting place but rather virtual meeting places. Can social networking sites really replace the function served by these two former pillars of our communities? Their proponents would doubtless point to the Arab Spring in which a vast swathe of North Africa was gripped by the need for social change after centuries of oppression. Perhaps this argument carries weight but it is instructive to remember that these countries have thriving churches and although alcohol is forbidden, their elders meet regularly in cafes to discuss their problems. Hence, in spite of the populist view that such countries need to adopt democracy and catch up with the developed world, I am increasingly of the view that the converse could hardly be more true. In such countries, the model of the family predominates society while our model continues to crumble and fragment like a piece of sandstone.
We in the UK have just enjoyed four decades of uninterrupted growth and standards of living which our forebears would not have even imagined. Yet still we want more. Is there no limit to the extent of our greed. I look around me and never have to look for my next meal. I am never cold and never in need of clothing. I can't even comprehend the lives of most of the people with whom I share this strange planet. Our grandfathers gave their lives in the two world wars so that the next generation would not have to face such horrors. However, I feel that their sacrifice was in vain because if they could see us now, I don't think they'd do it all again - and I for one wouldn't blame them if they didn't.
It is interesting to consider the political ideologies which polarised the world as a consequence of the World Wars. On the one hand Communism espoused equality for all while Capitalism espoused opportunity for all. With only North Korea and Cuba left as the only true Communist nations, it would be fair to conclude that this ideology was fundamentally flawed. However, compared to its Capitalist nemesis, Communism has been a roaring success. Capitalism has been a disaster for millions of us as evidenced by recent developments in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and Italy to name but a few. All these countries have been living off overdrafts the magnitude of which they couldn't hope to repay.
Could it be that a third way exists which has not yet been espoused? For the sake of us all, I sincerely hope so because I'm not sure I like what I see around me. Perhaps Dickens was just trying to tell us through the mouthpiece of Mr. Micawber and friends to give us all an insight into what the future could be. Never did he do this to better effect than with the three ghosts who visited Scrooge upon that fateful Christmas Eve. Perhaps like Scrooge we will all wake up and turn over a new leaf. Perhaps we will all start to remember those around us instead of looking after number one. Perhaps a football club winning a trophy might not be so important after all and perhaps we will feel personal responsibility for the plight of our fellow man. Perhaps we won't need to be guided by Public School educated politicians on the payroll of greedy Antipodeans desperate to extract our money from us. Maybe we can all learn to just count our blessings and be truly grateful for what we have rather than what we have not.
But back to Max Gerson. I do not suggest as he did that his Gerson Therapy was a credible cure for cancer. That would be fanciful. His fundamental argument though was sound. We are eating too much food. Too much of what we are eating is the wrong stuff and we are taking far too little exercise. Much as the medical establishment despises Max Gerson, they would do well to consider the basic message of this regime. If they did, the current challenges to world health would be radically cut. Taxing unhealthy food is not the answer. Educating people about the right food will be infinitely more effective. We have a big problem. We have continued to promote a food retail structure which actively promotes most of the very foods which we should be seeking to restrict in our diets. The food retail sector is now massive providing employment for millions. Solving that problem is the key to addressing our existing challenges to health.
Reputations: The Pitfalls
When England regained the Ashes in 2005 after so many years of Australian dominance, their team was duly Honoured by the Queen presumably for having rediscovered how to win against the Australians. The general view was that the 2005 series hinged on the improbable event of Glenn McGrath twisting his ankle on a cricket ball thus ruling himself out of a critical match. What we don't know is exactly when that great Australian team had reached it's peak. It boasted a wealth of talent with many capable of dictating the outcome of a Test Match. The names still trip off the tongue: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath and Lee to name but a few.
Sometimes, one side is in the ascendency at the same time as their opponents are in decline. Only hindsight reveals the truth. The 2005 series showed the Australians coming to the end of the line with a tried and trusted team with England pulling themselves out of the mire after so many years of self doubt. All great players reach their shelf life. The king is dead, long live the king.
Since 2005, England have largely been in the ascendency but more due to their team ethos than to match winners. They've certainly had some good players but not many that I would call match winners. Either way, the time is up for Alistair Cook's England and the real inquisition will begin when they return to Blighty. After much licking of wounds and soul searching, certain facts will linger to haunt them. The decision to drop Nick Compton after a couple of dodgy scores has proved hasty. Carberry has done his best but in all honesty, his best years are behind him and he has been found wanting at the highest level. Root has been messed around more than any player I can remember in recent years. I can't remember the last time a player so young has been employed at 1,2,3 and 6 in such a ludicrously short space of time. If his confidence is shot, it is little wonder. He was doing fine at number six and ought to have stayed there as Michael Vaughan did a decade earlier.
Now we move on to the three biggest culprits in this series. Cook has not proved himself as captain. I can say this because a good captain is not measured when the going is good. He is measured by his actions when the chips are down. On this basis, Cook has fallen well short of the mark. To make matters even worse, his batting has fallen to pieces with his judgement gone. He has played shots on this tour which he wouldn't have contemplated a couple of years ago. He must either be dropped from the team to rediscover his form or be stripped of the captaincy which seems to over burden him.
If Ian Bell is technically the best batsman in the side (and I believe he is), I have questions to ask. Why wasn't he batting at number three from the word go? The departure of Trott after Brisbane should have promoted Bell to three automatically. It shouldn't even have been open to discussion. Why is Jimmy Anderson sent in ahead of him? What on earth has happened to his shot selection. For me, Bell has been the biggest disappointment of the entire tour because I expect him to prize his wicket. In not doing so, he has initiated the domino effect of the lower batting order. I never expect much of Pieterson because you've got to get past all the hype and ego to fully understand what he has to offer. This has been a backs to the wall tour. Pieterson is the last player I would want under those circumstances. He is utterly incapable of discipline and is therefore far more of a liability than an asset. I doubt if he could spell the word team and fail to see what he brings to a dressing room in terms of camaraderie and bonding.
The one batsman on tour who had showed any type of form going in to it was Garry Ballance. He ought to have been a shoe-in at number five for the entire series. In truth, Ben Stokes only got the nod because of the poor form elsewhere. Since then he has let nobody down. He is young and, injuries permitting, will get better and better. Trott has been out of form for the entire series and had to go. His best years are now probably behind him and the promotion of Bairstow was the only logical solution. There may be better keepers out there but his batting and his presence in the dressing room will more than compensate for that.
There is an old adage in cricket that bowlers win matches. The departure of Swann citing his retirement was a surprise to some. I had been expecting it because he didn't look as though he was enjoying his cricket any more. Swann was a bowler who needed a spring in his step and I sense that the England dressing room has not been a good place to be these last few months. Swann will be nigh on impossible to replace and Panesar is a poor replacement. As good a bowler as Panesar is, his batting and fielding are a million miles behind Swann. Swann was a match winning bowler and that is why he will be so hard to replace. In the end, the Australians worked out how to play him - aggressively.
Given the pre-series hype surrounding Broad, he has coped fairly well with the pressure but his batting has been appalling. He is probably the only front line bowler to emerge with any credit out of this series but needs to get back in to the middle and make some runs when he gets back to England. In his time, Anderson has been a good bowler for England. This series suggests that he has now come to the end of the line. He is a shadow of his former self and even average batsmen are taking him apart. Unfortunately for England, none of the three big fast bowlers have been worthy of selection and the selection of Boyd Rankin for this Test in Sidney will come back to haunt them.
Always give credit where it is due. For all the menace of Johnson in this series, it is the batting of Haddin which has made the most difference. At 36, he has spent most of his career playing understudy to the great Gilchrist. He has disappointed nobody. He has excelled and given steel to the Australian tail. How many times have the Australians been thankful to Haddin for bailing them out in this series? An extraordinary performance from a journeyman player.
A 5-0 loss will not be such a bad thing for England. They have been in need of a reality check for some time now and I suspect that last summer's Ashes victory was a little more than flattering to them. When Ian Botham and Alec Stewart both predicted England wins in this current Ashes series, I raised an eyebrow. For such seasoned professionals, their glasses seem to have become a little too rose tinted. The weaknesses in this England team have been on display for some time now. The big question now is who they turn to. A new captain is needed urgently and only Broad of the current batch seems to have the credentials - provided he can desist from the late night bars which have haunted him relentlessly up to now. His past decision to stand his ground when out would make his selection a contentious one but I can't see any better options at present. Whatever, England do next summer, they must do it without the gargantuan ego of Kevin Pieterson and move on. Time to start planning for the future and stop dining out on past glories?
Sometimes, one side is in the ascendency at the same time as their opponents are in decline. Only hindsight reveals the truth. The 2005 series showed the Australians coming to the end of the line with a tried and trusted team with England pulling themselves out of the mire after so many years of self doubt. All great players reach their shelf life. The king is dead, long live the king.
Since 2005, England have largely been in the ascendency but more due to their team ethos than to match winners. They've certainly had some good players but not many that I would call match winners. Either way, the time is up for Alistair Cook's England and the real inquisition will begin when they return to Blighty. After much licking of wounds and soul searching, certain facts will linger to haunt them. The decision to drop Nick Compton after a couple of dodgy scores has proved hasty. Carberry has done his best but in all honesty, his best years are behind him and he has been found wanting at the highest level. Root has been messed around more than any player I can remember in recent years. I can't remember the last time a player so young has been employed at 1,2,3 and 6 in such a ludicrously short space of time. If his confidence is shot, it is little wonder. He was doing fine at number six and ought to have stayed there as Michael Vaughan did a decade earlier.
Now we move on to the three biggest culprits in this series. Cook has not proved himself as captain. I can say this because a good captain is not measured when the going is good. He is measured by his actions when the chips are down. On this basis, Cook has fallen well short of the mark. To make matters even worse, his batting has fallen to pieces with his judgement gone. He has played shots on this tour which he wouldn't have contemplated a couple of years ago. He must either be dropped from the team to rediscover his form or be stripped of the captaincy which seems to over burden him.
If Ian Bell is technically the best batsman in the side (and I believe he is), I have questions to ask. Why wasn't he batting at number three from the word go? The departure of Trott after Brisbane should have promoted Bell to three automatically. It shouldn't even have been open to discussion. Why is Jimmy Anderson sent in ahead of him? What on earth has happened to his shot selection. For me, Bell has been the biggest disappointment of the entire tour because I expect him to prize his wicket. In not doing so, he has initiated the domino effect of the lower batting order. I never expect much of Pieterson because you've got to get past all the hype and ego to fully understand what he has to offer. This has been a backs to the wall tour. Pieterson is the last player I would want under those circumstances. He is utterly incapable of discipline and is therefore far more of a liability than an asset. I doubt if he could spell the word team and fail to see what he brings to a dressing room in terms of camaraderie and bonding.
The one batsman on tour who had showed any type of form going in to it was Garry Ballance. He ought to have been a shoe-in at number five for the entire series. In truth, Ben Stokes only got the nod because of the poor form elsewhere. Since then he has let nobody down. He is young and, injuries permitting, will get better and better. Trott has been out of form for the entire series and had to go. His best years are now probably behind him and the promotion of Bairstow was the only logical solution. There may be better keepers out there but his batting and his presence in the dressing room will more than compensate for that.
There is an old adage in cricket that bowlers win matches. The departure of Swann citing his retirement was a surprise to some. I had been expecting it because he didn't look as though he was enjoying his cricket any more. Swann was a bowler who needed a spring in his step and I sense that the England dressing room has not been a good place to be these last few months. Swann will be nigh on impossible to replace and Panesar is a poor replacement. As good a bowler as Panesar is, his batting and fielding are a million miles behind Swann. Swann was a match winning bowler and that is why he will be so hard to replace. In the end, the Australians worked out how to play him - aggressively.
Given the pre-series hype surrounding Broad, he has coped fairly well with the pressure but his batting has been appalling. He is probably the only front line bowler to emerge with any credit out of this series but needs to get back in to the middle and make some runs when he gets back to England. In his time, Anderson has been a good bowler for England. This series suggests that he has now come to the end of the line. He is a shadow of his former self and even average batsmen are taking him apart. Unfortunately for England, none of the three big fast bowlers have been worthy of selection and the selection of Boyd Rankin for this Test in Sidney will come back to haunt them.
Always give credit where it is due. For all the menace of Johnson in this series, it is the batting of Haddin which has made the most difference. At 36, he has spent most of his career playing understudy to the great Gilchrist. He has disappointed nobody. He has excelled and given steel to the Australian tail. How many times have the Australians been thankful to Haddin for bailing them out in this series? An extraordinary performance from a journeyman player.
A 5-0 loss will not be such a bad thing for England. They have been in need of a reality check for some time now and I suspect that last summer's Ashes victory was a little more than flattering to them. When Ian Botham and Alec Stewart both predicted England wins in this current Ashes series, I raised an eyebrow. For such seasoned professionals, their glasses seem to have become a little too rose tinted. The weaknesses in this England team have been on display for some time now. The big question now is who they turn to. A new captain is needed urgently and only Broad of the current batch seems to have the credentials - provided he can desist from the late night bars which have haunted him relentlessly up to now. His past decision to stand his ground when out would make his selection a contentious one but I can't see any better options at present. Whatever, England do next summer, they must do it without the gargantuan ego of Kevin Pieterson and move on. Time to start planning for the future and stop dining out on past glories?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)