Care Home

Care is a word we hear a great deal about in a wide variety of contexts. The Greek language has seven different words for care depending upon which definition we are thinking of. As we might expect, it is not a new word although we have chosen to interpret it in different ways with the passage of the years.

We can first think of care as a noun. The modern interpretations seem to focus on care in two rather distinct ways. The first refers to what is necessary to provide health, welfare, maintenance and protection of something or someone. The second refers to the serious attention or consideration which is applied to do something correctly or to avoid damage or risk. I'm sure there are other interpretations but these seem to be the main ones.

After the noun comes the verb and these interpretations are equally interesting. The first refers to what we feel in terms of interest or concern or simply to attach importance to something. The second speaks of our need to look after and provide for the needs of others.

It is quite clear then that our contemporary interpretations of care fall in to two distinct categories. The first seems to centre on care as being our concern or interest related to the health, welfare and maintenance of our fellow man. The second, by contrast, seems to relate to the attention which we give to the first definition.

The Greek language has several words for care of which the most prevalent is frontida. Latin uses the noun curae whose meanings include care, cure, pains, concern, treatment and charge. The Chinese use the word 關懷 which extends the meaning to showing concern. The German language has at least 11 words which they use to mean care. The German word die pflege specifically refers to care, maintenance, nursing and nursing care whereas their word die fursorge refers to care, welfare, social security and ministration. The arabic version refers to patronage and the Hindi version specifically refers to the word thought.

In Wales, we are very fond of using a word very similar to care. The word is caru and quite simply, it means love. Of all the languages, it is arguable that the Welsh word caru comes closest to defining what care is all about.

So why waffle on about care? Ever since the publication of the Francis Report in the aftermath of the Stafford Hospital scandal, care has occupied a central position in the national debate about the sort of country we are and the sort of country which we aspire to be. Only this week, the world famous Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge has become the latest hospital to be placed in "special measures". Quite what that means remains a mystery to me but as with much of modern life, it is arguably another case of words being used in such a way as to try and avoid the real issue. I would have thought that every hospital was in "special measures" as a matter of course. But the real issue at Addenbrookes was one of staffing and not one of care. Of course, requisite staff numbers are needed before proper care can ever be delivered. So rather than place the hospital in "special measures", why not just staff it properly in the first place? This isperhaps where the German definition assumes greater relevance. Their reference to social security, welfare and nursing is perhaps at the root of the issue when discussing our hospitals in "special measures".

The word home is equally emotive and means something very special to all of us. Interestingly, the Welsh word for home is cartref. The logical root of the word cartref is a joining together of the words caru meaning love and the word tref meaning town. The Welsh have the word ty for house and the word cartref for home. So cartref is a really telling word when we consider the words "care" and "home". It literally translates to something akin to "Love home dwelling for loved ones". That is pretty powerful by any measure. A stroll through various languages finds that the English word home means pretty much the same things; residence, abode, dwelling, home and household.

So when we consider the English "Care Home", the Welsh have one word which says it so much better; Cartref. This is all the more interesting where I live in Denbighshire because in my local community, we have three local authority Care Homes which are highly prized and valued. There is scarcely a family in Denbigh, Ruthin or Corwen whose family doesn't owe a huge debt to the care which has been provided in those homes. My own family is indebted for the care of my late Grandmother, my late Great Aunt and my 97 year old Great Aunt who continues to receive the highest standards of care.

As I write this, our Local Authority is about to announce a consultation period for local people to have their say. They have announced their intention to take Dolwen in Denbigh in to the Private Sector to provide EMI care. They plan to dispense with 24 hour care in \Awelon altogether instead favouring a four times a day warden service. The third Care Home Cysgod y Gaer in Corwen is earmarked to become a community hub for the more rural Corwen area. This is a very sad state of affairs.

As Councils up and down the land are being asked to make savings from Central Government, some hard decisions are being made. But I have now attended two public meetings in Corwen and Ruthin and it is obvious that local people in my county of Denbighshire would walk over broken glass to keep these Care Homes under Local Authory control. Even the latest inspection reports of all three Care Homes are glowing in their praise for the way they are run and the care which they provide for our elders.

If I am lucky enough to reach a decent old age, I would like to think Dolwen, Awelon and Cysgod y Gaer would still be there for my generation. In the next few weeks, we will all have the chance to stand up and speak up for these highly prized community assetts. I will be doing just that and I hope that the people of the Vale of Clwyd and the Dee Valley do likewise. We will have one chance to get this right and we can't afford not to. We have to keep in mind that Welsh word "Cartref" and let our decision makers know what it means to us.

Jeremy Corbyn: Just the man for a crisis?

                 The rise to prominence of Jeremy Corbyn as the frontrunner in the forthcoming Labour leadership contest should surprise nobody. The irony is that his presence in the contest only arose due to the perceived need to be seen to be fair and include all factions. That quest for inclusivity and fairness has achieved two notable outcomes. In the first instance, it has severely embarrassed  his proponents such as Margaret Becket. It has achieved something of far greater importance though. It has reminded the Labour Party of the importance of being earnest.

                To espouse inclusion and fairness is one thing. To achieve it is quite another. By putting the full menu of options before the membership, it appears that they now have their answer in terms of which direction the membership would like to go. Careful what you wish for. Sometimes, when seeking answers to questions, we receive the answers which bring the greatest discomfort. The choice of the people to plump for the overt left-wing approach of Corbyn does three things. It sends a strong message of disapproval to the Labour Party of their approach from the election of Blair to the present day. But it goes much further than that. The membership has simply reminded the Labour Party of what they believe it should stand for. That is the slice of the cake which the present shadow cabinet is finding most difficult to digest. If it was pie, it would definitely be of the humble variety. The final achievement of Corbyn emerging as the new Labour leader is perhaps the most important though. It will present the British electorate with a straight left versus right choice in 2020 for the first time since 1983; and at a time of enforced austerity with interest rates on the brink of rising, the need for such a choice has seldom been greater.

                General elections are generally won or lost by the incumbent party. It is evident that for whatever reason, the more draconian right wing policies of the Tories won the day in May if only by a whisker. While the Tories did indeed win the election, the main party of opposition had failed miserably to outline with any clarity what exactly it did stand for. Miliband was widely portrayed as “Red Ed”, the man of the left who would return the party to its core roots. Had he done so, he may well have won because the seats haemorrhaged to the other parties might have been retained and built upon. Miliband’s principle problem was that he failed to convince anyone of his intentions, integrity or conviction. But worse still, his credentials fell short of what was needed to convince a weary electorate. Another polished Oxbridge career politician was not, in the end, what the electorate wanted. Having endured Blair, Cameron and Clegg in recent years, people were beginning to look for something rather more human and believable.

                Clearly, the right wing domination of the British media had a big part to play in the recent election.  But with more conviction, Labour could and should have done so much more to offer a more appealing solution. This is the part where Corbyn shines like a beacon. Irrespective of his age, facial hair or resistance to wearing a tie, Corbyn is a man of conviction. To underline how important that will be in the years ahead, try if you will to think of the last significant conviction politician in British politics. I would argue that in recent years, Alex Salmond has been a very smart politician and has achieved a great deal but I have never seen him as a man of true conviction. If Scottish Independence was on the table, Salmond would dance to pretty much any tune you cared to play. No, I think the last true conviction politician of note in Britain was Margaret Thatcher. Conviction and popularity are not natural bedfellows. Michael Foot was indeed a conviction politician as was Tony Benn but both failed to achieve the success of Thatcher.

                A true politician of conviction will inevitably polarise public opinion just as Thatcher did in the 1980s. Thatcher seldom made a decision based on popularity and that is why she was both revered and despised in equal measure. I doubt very much whether she had ever read “How to make friends and influence people” by Dale Carnegie. By the same token, I doubt very much whether Corbyn has read it either. This is precisely why Corbyn probably represents Labour’s best chance of regaining power five years hence. His policies and arguments are resonating with the millions and, of particular significance, he has achieved something very rare. He has succeeded in engaging the youth. It is the latter which offers Labour hope. In recent elections, the youth vote has been largely non-existent. Few will change the voting habits of the man who has voted Labour or Tory for the last fifty years because such tribal beasts seldom wander beyond their own herd. Young people are a different proposition. They have no such pre-conceptions and still retain the capacity to keep an open mind. Like Sturgeon in Scotland and Wood in Wales, Corbyn is clearly anti-austerity. For the millions currently feeling the pain of Tory ideology, this will resonate as evidenced by the astonishing performance of the SNP in May. With Corbyn, there are no woolly attempts to hide behind ifs, buts and maybes. Like him or loathe him, he leaves us in no doubt about where he stands. That is the mark of true conviction. 

                The quest of the Labour Party to be seen to be fair in their leadership election is a great starting point. They now need to take the same approach to their policy making when Corbyn is elected leader. The attempts by various individuals to try and scupper the contest should remind Labour of the challenges ahead. We are told that the brainchild of the Blair years, Peter Mandelson, has tried unsuccessfully to bring a halt to the contest. Even the interim leader Harriet Harman has explored the possibility of putting a stop to it – only to be rebuffed by her lawyers. In short, to regain credibility, Labour needs to cut its ties to the era of Mandelson and Blair. Thirteen years of power it might have been, but the legacy of that is doing the current Labour Party no favours. If the Labour membership elects any of Corbyn’s leadership rivals, they will rue the day because they will have failed to move on from Blair yet again. They now have to stand up for the people and do the simple things well. They need to listen and give the people what they want whilst responding to those areas which continue to invoke the greatest anger.

                Few people’s memories are so short that they can forget the behaviour of the big banks when measured against the near national bankruptcy of 2008. It is sometimes easy to forget that we were just a few hours away from our cash machines being closed down; and yet we have been all too quick to scorn the plight of the Greeks in recent days and weeks. There but for the grace of God went us all; and it cost us our gold reserve to escape the same fate. People will also recall with ease the way in which the postal service was surrendered, again in the name of corporate greed. A word of warning is also warranted though. Corbyn also needs to look very carefully at the legacy of Blair’s long time chancellor, Gordon Brown. By building the Public Sector up so quickly on such weak financial foundations, Brown failed miserably. To seek a large Public Sector (as France have had for so many years), is all well and good – provided the masses can really feel the benefit. There is too much evidence of that money being squandered during the Brown years. Corbyn’s intention to re-nationalise is really interesting. This is the first Labour politician in over a generation to openly espouse such a clear ideological position. In effect, he is espousing the same social democracy which has worked so well for the many throughout the Scandinavina countries. Like them, he also prefers to avoid the prospect of international conflict. After the disaster of Iraq and Afghanistan, this will strike a very strong chord with the British electorate. Had Blair based his decision to invade Iraq on facts rather than fantasy, we would not now be faced with the current mess in Syria and Iraq in which Western mistakes have fuelled religious extremism. Some things are best left left to the diplomats and dialogue. There remains a lack of evidence pointing to military success in Afghanistan or Iraq so it beggars belief why we felt that would change – or that it was our place to change it.

                When old Labour dinosaurs like David Blunket try to brand Corbyn as a great man of opposition , they do him a great disservice and forfeit much of their own credibility. Just as the SNP enjoyed its own renaissance in recent years with Salmond and Sturgeon, Labour now stands on the brink of its own rebirth. Although instead of this being a rebirth, Labour is merely going back to its roots which is their only route back to Downing Street. With Corbyn, they have a man of real conviction finally capable of cutting Labour free of the toxic shackles of Blair, Mandelson et al.

                This year, I have been lucky enough to visit and study at close hand two European countries whose contrasting political systems have given me plenty of food for thought. In May, I spent five days in Scandinavia; Denmark to be precise. I was blown away by how advanced they were in so many ways compared to us in Britain. The high priority afforded to the very young and the very old were a joy to behold. They put a limit on working hours having long since recognised the value of family time in the context of wider society. They pay a large amount of tax compared to us but what they get in return is positively Utopian in comparison. They preach and practice the value of exercise with the majority getting from A to B on a bicycle or on foot. Their public transport system is clean, efficient and reliable. For those who want to eat unhealthy foods, drink alcohol or smoke, they can do so but they pay a hefty premium for the privilege. Beyond dogmatic taxation though, it is their education system which continues to reap such wide dividends.

                From nursery onwards, they appreciate the value of play and social interaction ahead of times tables and league tables by the age of five. They don’t worry about the latter until their children are ready at about age seven or eight. Those extra formative years learning the really important stuff reaps enormous dividends later on. There is also a real feeling that everyone is responsible for any given child and they all play their part either directly or indirectly. If a British man saw a child looking distressed, he would think twice about intervening publicly for fear of future litigation. His Scandinavian counterpart appears to have no such fears. The whole of Scandinavian adult society play its part in terms of social responsibility. If they keep their surroundings clean and free of litter, it follows that their children will do likewise; and they do. Yesterday, my wife and I walked a friend of our son home. Seeing the footpath strewn with litter, broken glass and condoms, he asked why people allowed it to be like this and questioned why nobody came to clean it up. That is the example we allow our children to grow up with. That responsibility lies with all of us and one of the biggest challenges facing Jeremy Corbyn will be to engender that civic pride in all of us. I can only wonder at what effect it would have if the TV cameras showed a major political leader wearing a high visibility vest and carrying a large black bin bag while he cleared letter. Now that really would be radical. The Scandinavians boast wide open spaces with plenty of water and greenery and they recognise and appreciate the absolute value of that for the mental health of their citizens. We have much to learn. But Denmark like the rest of Scandinavia decided it’s chosen path a long time ago and successive governments have stuck like glue to the basic template. British politics seem to know no such moderation.

            If Denmark was a fine example of a progressive social democratic country, France is undeniably a traditional socialist stronghold. But that is not always a bad thing. On our recent holiday to the Ile d’Oleron just off their west coast, we witnessed at first-hand how tourism is best handled. To begin with, the French welcomed the tourist. Beyond that, the island was totally geared up to provide their visitors with what they wanted; the sea and the sand. There was no car parking charges. There were plenty of vantage points to sit down and enjoy the view. There was public toilets freely available wherever we went, always clean and valued by those who used them. Every village boasted a thriving produce market augmented with the crafts of local artisans. Put simply, regardless of their socialist image, the French value local communities and craftsmen and women. The entire island had been festooned with tourist friendly cycle routes and unsurprisingly, the tourists en masse all hired bikes from the many local companies on arrival. Many of those tourists returned year after year safe in the knowledge they were going to receive what they wanted. Tourism really is that simple as indeed is localism. If people are supported to operate in community-led ways, they will be better supported by their public and the ensuing society will be happier and fairer. What the French have done when it is truly analysed is to create public services which work and public facilities which the public both want and value – and they have achieved this in a very efficient manner. Their trains put ours to shame and travel much faster. Their postal service remains nationalised and the yellow post vans we saw were all electric.  We saw far less obesity, fewer people getting drunk, fewer people smoking and children were simply integrated in to everyday life. So while the right wing press is busy mocking the expected coronation of Corbyn as the new Labour leader, he has the potential to leave them all with copious amounts of egg on their faces five years hence. It will not be an easy task but it will be achievable with conviction and he appears to have that in spades. Interesting times. 

                

The Good Life 40 years on

The sermon at the Easter Day service brought up a view point which made me take stock. The vicar reminded us with a little humour that we are now in the midst of a general election campaign. But he cleverly highlighted the use of military language by the media when referring to a "political battle" or a "moral victory" or a "robust defence" - the list goes on.
In fact, he highlighted most of the real problems with the modern political system. The point scoring mentality of the military has been adopted by our political masters. What we really need though is a more collaborative approach. During the war, that approach was not optional as the national interest superceded all else. What has changed? For one thing we have become more affluent and with affluence comes greater political power. I suspect therein lies the problem.
Working for the common good can assume several guises. It can be achieved on a societal level or just simply at home.
The Good Life became one of our best loved and most enduring sit coms. The backdrop was beautifully simple. Two surburban neighbours. One pair are social climbers keeping up with the Jones's and their neighbours have eschewed that life in favour of self sufficiency. Isn't that dream lingering inside all of us. The satisfaction of working your little piece of land to yield produce is surely the ultimate dream. It focuses on the real rewards of sustainace rather than the perceived rewards of materialism. I would welcome any political voice which promoted the Good Life.