David Crosby: Eight Miles High at 75

If one man epitomised and represented the massively influential counter-culture of 1960s America, David Crosby was that man. He had dropped out of education and headed for Greenwich Village in the early years of the 1960s. He was an early contemporary of Bob Dylan, the man whose musical direction had such a profound impression on his own. The early folk music of Greenwich Village which spawned the hippy movement has stayed integral to Crosby's raison d'etre. That David Crosby will be 75 on August 12th is a miracle in itself. By the age of 30, he had already achieved far more than most do in a lifetime.

After joining the Byrds in 1964, Crosby participated in the definitive sound of folk rock whose influence is still felt widely today. While Roger McGuinn played the distinctive twelve string guitar on "Mr. Tambourine Man", it was Crosby who lent the trademark harmonies. The end result was an iconic sound which sounds just as fresh today as when it was first released in 1965. It was Crosby who wrote the legendary "Eight Miles High". In short, the Byrds were the American equivalent of the Beatles. It is impossible to fully gauge their influence. Although the classic line up of McGuinn, Clark, Crosby, Hillman and Clarke was relatively short-lived (1965-1967), their output still stands the test of time. They were justifiably inducted in to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1991 having pioneered the "Folk Rock" genre. Comparisons with the British Small Faces are compelling. The latter were active from 1965 until 1968 and have left an equally impressive legacy albeit in a rather different genre.

Crosby is not an easy man to accomodate in any group but that is often the way with creative artists. As his back catalogue shows, here is a man always prepared to try something new. His songs have the common thread of social conscience flowing through them. Between leaving the Byrds and establishing the harmony trio Crosby, Stills and Nash, he was also responsible for discovering and producing the first album of a hitherto unknown musician from Canada; Joni Mitchell. He was famed for always having access to the most potent marijuana and was at the epicentre of the Laurel Canyon scene of the 1960s. It's denizens read like a Who's Who of classic rock music. The Doors, Mama Cass, Eric Burdon, Frank Zappa, Mickey Dolenz, Neil Young and various other members of Buffalo Springfield. With so much talent all living within such close proximity, it is easy to understand how such an incredible output of influential music was born.

Stories of how Crosby, Stills and Nash came to be vary considerably but the end result is in no doubt. With perhaps the exception of Art Garfunkel, Graham Nash was about the top harmony voice around. In Stephen Stills, they had a musician of prodigious talent. Crosby was the harmony that held it all together and gave us "Our House", "Teach your Children", "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes", "Almost cut my hair", "Guinnevere" and so many more. Until their zenith in 1974 when their stadium tour broke all records, Crosby, Stills and Nash were the dominant force. Such was their influence, even the mighty Led Zepellin fashioned their third album on their pure folk sound with songs such as "Going to California". By 1974 though, marijuana had long since given way to cocaine as the Woodstock generation woke up to the harsh realities of of their brave new world.

In those heady years, the various personnel of Crosby, Stills and Nash had all embarked on side projects. Crosby has been a part of the initial Jefferson Starship project: Planet Earth Rock and Roll Orchestra. It featured among others Jerry Garcia (Grateful Dead), Grace Slick, Paul Kantner and Jack Cassady (Jefferson Airplane), Carlos Santana and Graham Nash. Drugs had become an ever more dominat part of Crosby's existence and the future of Crosby, Stills and Nash was in the balance for a long time. It culminated in his arrest and imprisonment in 1982 for possession of class A drugs and firearms. A nine months prison sentence was followed in 1985 by another arrest this time for drunk driving. By 1994, the hard living had caught up with him and a liver transplant ensued. In 2000, it emerged that David Crosby had been the sperm donor for Melissa Etheridge and her partner Julie Cypher.

At 75, David Crosby shows few signs of slowing down having recently released the widely acclaimed solo album, Croz. It was a far cry from his first effort "If I could only remember my name" in 1971. He still advocated freedom, peace and equality. He has regularly demonstrated outside Wall Street and the capitalism which his generation tried so hard to break down through their music. Mere mortals would have long since deceased with a fraction of the self imposed physical abuse of David Crosby. As his unlikely 75th birthday beckons, he has proved a great many people wrong and let his music do the talking. An entire generation grew up with the hope which he and his fellow troubadours expressed so eloquently.  

David Kelly: The man who knew too much?

As we brace ourselves for another Prime Minister, it is a good time to remind ourselves of how Her Majesty's Government has operated in the past. This week will see the release of the long awaited Chilcot Report in to Britain's involvement in the Iraq war of 2003 which ultimately led to the downfall of Saddam Hussain and the commensurate rise of ISIS. The evidence upon which our then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, convinced MPs in the House of Commons has since found to be non-existent.

The Chilcot Report has cost a staggering £2.3 million and has taken a frankly amazing 7 years to be published. Already we have seen national newspapers reporting that instead of bringing Tony Blair to account, the report will instead be focusing on the potential human rights abuses of army personnel in Iraq. While the latter is quite proper if identified, it is extraordinary that a Prime Minister can effectively be exempted from making such a catastrophic decision based on a false claim.

On July 17th 2003, David Kelly, a government advisor on weapons of mass destruction was found dead in woodland and the Coroner's Report on the cause of death has been hotly disputed ever since. Kelly was quoted as saying to a colleague just days before that he would "probably be found dead in woodland". For the record, Kelly always denied the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Blair used weapons of mass destruction as the raison d'etre for a US/UK invasion. At the time of writing, there remains no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The legacy of that decision is here with us daily. ISIS sprang up on a wave of predictable extremism in response to the West going gung-ho in to Iraq. If that wasn't bad enough, Tony Blair was subsequently employed as a Peace Advisor in the region after leaving Gordon Brown to face the economic downturn in the UK.

We are about to witness one of the greatest cover-ups in British history and it is useful to remind ourselves of Tony Blair's response when asked if he had blood on his hands after the death of David Kelly. He gave no response.

Last week, Tony Blair entered the debate on Jeremy Corbyn's continued leadership of the Labour Party. The irony was not lost on me and I am in speechless at the temerity of the man. My then MP Chris Ruane voted in favour of the war in Iraq swayed no doubt by the persuasive argument of his then leader, Tony Blair. Having met Chris more than once, I very much doubt if he would have done so had he known the truth. Let this be a salutory lesson of what happens when elected representatives are not fully scrutinised. We all have a role to play in that both nationally and locally. The history books will not be kind to Tony Blair and  neither will they forget David Kelly - irrespective of what the Chilcot Report finds.

1956: Jim Laker's Year

For cricket buffs like myself, the names of certain players immediately invoke feelings of awe. Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Fry, the list goes on. After the Second World War, enmity on the battlefield was replaced with established enmity on the cricket pitch and there remains no enmity stronger than the one between England and her antipodean cousins in Australia. In 1948, the great Bradman and Hammond had bowed out taking with them a mountain of memories which had left the statisticians breathless and the journalists grasping for newer superlatives.

The 1950 winter tour to Australia saw a much weakened England team destroyed by an Australian side ably captained by the stylish Lindsay Hassett and featuring many members of the legendary 1948 team. Of the England players on that tour, only Hutton and the ageing Alec Bedser were true test class and England were lambs to the slaughter as they had been at home in 1948. The Albion returned home and looked ahead to the home series in 1953 with justifiable trepidation.

Against all odds, England drew the first four tests with Denis Compton famously hitting the winning runs at the Oval to reclaim the urn which had been in Australian hands since 1934. Alec Bedser claimed an astonishing 39 wickets at a miserly 17 runs each with Len Hutton once more dominating the batting honours with 443 runs averaging 55. In that series, a number of different spin bowlers were employed and one of them was the Yorkshire born Surrey off-spinner Jim Laker. He took 9 wickets in 3 tests at 23 runs each. Hardly the sort of figures to put the Aussies in a sweat. But by the end of 1956, the Aussies were sick of the sight of him.

The 1956 series saw England regain the Ashes and although one man never wins a series in a team game like cricket, Laker came about as close as you can get. They could have seen it coming when the Australians played a tour match against Laker's Surrey in May. Electing to bat, Australia struggled to 259 with Laker taking 10 for 88 off a staggering 46 overs! That was a warning shot but the best was yet to come. In the first three Ashes Tests of 1956 he took 3, 6 and 11 wickets respectively and then came Old Trafford. He took 9 wickets for 37 in their first innings and a jaw dropping 10 for 53 in their second. It is one of those records which will stand time immemorial. 19 wickets for 90 runs with poor Tony Lock bowling from the other end claiming a sole consolation wicket.

For the really astute followers of the game, Laker also took eight wickets for just 2 runs in a Test trial on this day in 1950. England's best ever off-spin bowler? Undoubtedly.

That year, Jim Laker received the Sports Personality of the Year Award. If there has been a more deserving recipient, I remain to be convinced.

Dolwen on the brink

I recently attended a public meeting organised by Denbighshire County Council (DCC) in respect of the proposed plans for our council-run care home in Dolwen. The meeting was reasonably well attended and the independent chairman was formerly the director of social services.

A brief presentation was given by Phil Gilroy, the lead officer for social services. He reiterated the content of the existing DCC documents, "Modernising the Provision of Care - The Case for Change" and "Consultation on the future of DCC's in-house care services". The latter document states that DCC has been looking at the future of in-house care services since March 2014. At that time, the Performance Scrutiny Committee requested that a Task and Finish group was established to "examine value for money options for delivering high quality social care services in the County". DCC goes on to justify the need for this because:-

1. DCC needs to respond to the changing expectations of Welsh Government and the wider population about what modern social services should look like.
2. DCC needs to focus its limited resources towards the areas of highest demand, because of the ongoing requirement to deliver financial savings.

Following the "listening and engagement phase" with individual service users and their families last year, the following conclusions were drawn:-

1. The services and support provided at all our council-run residential care homes and day centres are greatly valued.
2. The bilingual staff teams and the accessibility of the residential care homes, particularly to those without transport, are particularly important. It became apparent that many residents would be adversely affected if they were asked to leave their homes now.
3. Cabinet then agreed that "whatever decisions are made about any future changes, no individual service user will be asked to move from their current home unless a suitable alternative is identified where their needs can be met".
4. "It is evident from the pre-consultation exercise that location is critical for many people, and that many families and friends would find it difficult to visit residents who live far from their current homes".

DCC goes on to refer to the "reducing numbers of people needing to be supported in residential care homes" and "the waiting lists for Extra Care Housing (ECH)". DCC explains that "this is why we...aim to provide more ECH and fewer residential care beds in the future. ECH provides care and support to tenants. DCC also states that "we believe that there should be no need for anyone to live in a standard residential care home in the future". They go on to claim that the numbers being supported by DCC in residential care has decreased from 579 in 2012 to 499 in 2015.

In the meeting last night, it was divulged that there are plans to provide 60 more ECH places at the site of the former Middle Lane School within the next 2 years. For me as a local resident, this was a bolt from the blue. Last night, one member of the audience asked Phil Gilroy how DCC measured the need for residential care. He answered that this was measured retrospectively based on existing trend data. The Chairman stated that the information wasn't local and that the local need wasn't tracked by DCC. It was instead taken from a general, national research. This means that there is no tracking (evidence) by DCC of the local need for residential care services. Thus, there is no information available for future planning. The implication of not having insight in to a future need means that DCC are completely unprepared. Although we know that more people are getting older, DCC has a disproportionately high percentage of elderly citizens. In simple terms, Denbighshire has more elderly people in need of residential care.

So let us recap some of that. DCC refer to a reducing number of people needing residential care but by the same token admit that they have no system in place to track the existing local need for such care. The research being used is national and retrospective as opposed to local and current. How can DCC possibly expect a good outcome if this is the road they intend to go down?

But what are the options being presented to the Denbighshire public regarding Dolwen? Let me share them with you to remove any doubt:-

1. Enter in to a partnership with an external organisation and transfer the whole service to them, while registering for EMH care.
At last night's meeting, a member of the public asked what the cost would be to register for EMH care. Phil Gilroy did not have a figure available so we don't know what that would cost although he suggested a ball park figure of c.£250k.
i. Ensures individuals living there now can continue to do so supported by the same staff and accessing the local community as much as they do now.
Although Phil Gilroy publicly stated that "We're not taking to any external agencies", it is hard to believe that no preliminary discussions have already taken place given the content of the existing consultation documents and various points made last night. 
ii. There would be a revenue saving of £92k on the cost of care for the existing 22 individuals and £75k on maintenance costs as the new provider would be commissioned using standard rates (currently £465.90 per resident per week).
This point is particularly worrying. Where has this figure of £92k emerged from? Based on DCC's own figures, the gross total cost of care for Dolwen for 2015/16 is £747,374 based on an occupancy of 27 residents (so quite where the figure of 22 residents has come from remains uncertain). The current 27 residents cost £532.32 each per week and this figure would be £479.09 if it was being run at full occupancy. But it is still unclear where this saving of £92k comes from. Also, if DCC has to spend £75k per annum on maintenance, the same will presumably apply to the new provider while at the same time paying them less money per resident. It is really hard to see how the current excellent standards of care can be maintained on such an obviously decreased budget. We have a duty of care to elderly residents who have paid their dues in taxes in good faith over many years.
iii. It is unlikely that there would be a capital receipt (DCC would effectively give the facility to the new external provider) as the new provider would need to spend a lot of money to ensure the building meets minimum standards.
Exactly how much money would a potential new provider have to spend to ensure the building meets minimum standards? Presumably, there must be a figure otherwise it is hard to see what exactly "a lot of money" actually equates to. This is clearly important information which is missing in the context of potentially giving away a publicly owned asset to the private sector. This is public money.
iv. It would also develop a level of EMH (elderly mental health) provision in the area, a growing area of demand. Plans for the development of ECH within Denbigh (Middle Lane School site) will continue.
The growth in demand for EMH care is acknowledged although DCC have yet again failed to quantify this. As with the existing lack of procedure for tracking the current local need for residential care, this is another area where DCC have failed to provide sufficient information.

2. Another solution is to lease or sell Dolwen for another purpose. The home would close and the service users and their families be supported to find suitable alternative provision.
This option was not discussed in any detail at last night's meeting.
i. DCC claim that this would reduce the overall cost of providing residential care and contribute to the necessary savings in the service to address the current council savings targets. There would again be a revenue saving of £92k on the cost of care for the existing 22 individuals and £75k on maintenance costs.
Frankly, this is absurd. How can getting rid of the available beds in Dolwen (for which the need is obvious!) possible save money? Putting aside the lack of detail on the £75k and the discrepancy in the number of current occupants, this would clearly cost the council far more than it would save them although once again, the figures arrived at have not been explained.
ii. The cost of current vacancies within residential care centres means that current resources are not being used as effectively as possible. This would resolve this problem.
This point clearly underlines that Extra Care is cheaper than residential care and the quoted figures appear to confirm this (£276 per week for Extra Care versus £479.09 for Dolwen if it was being run at full occupancy). DCC states that in each instance, the average amount of care time is 17 hours per week. Be that as it may, there remains a cohort of patients for whom residential care is the preferred and most appropriate care. I repeat that DCC have failed to produce a current, local measure of the desire and need for residential care. Until they do this, such arguments remain lacking in key information upon which robust decision making can be based.
iii. The council accepts that this change would mean disruption for the residents and their families if this proposal was to be adopted. DCC would carry out further individual assessments of every service user and find alternative provision in a sensitive and timely manner with the involvement of service users and families where possible. DCC would ensure that it complies with all its legal duties to its service users. Views of attendees would be sought and they would be helped to find suitable alternative provision that meets their needs.
Given that the pre-consultation exercise established that many residents would be adversely affected if they were asked to leave their homes now, this proposal beggars belief. Putting aside the fact that Welsh language provision hasn't even been mentioned (despite this being cited as a very important issue in the pre-consultation exercise), the uncertainty of location would loom large for many residents not to mention their loved ones who might find subsequent visiting more difficult. While DCC acknowledges the effect of disruption, this would be of little or no consolation to those residents and families involved. While DCC allude to suitable alternative provision, they fail to detail how much alternative provision currently exists within the county. At the very least, DCC needs to do this if only to quantify the amount of existing provision in Denbighshire - even if the location, bilingualism and emotional effect on current residents would have a devastating impact. In short, this second option is quite unacceptable and would probably remain unacceptable even if the missing information was provided.

3. Any other option or Alternative.
i. No final decision has been made. DCC is open to consider any other alternative or option you wish to put forward that meets the demand for residential and any care places within the available resources. All alternative submissions will be evaluated for their viability before being considered with the options we have put forward.
This option was raised at the Eirianfa meeting last night. The Chair and Phil Gilroy were asked to confirm whether the status quo could continue with DCC continuing to provide excellent care at the existing locations. Their responses were unclear so we still don't know if we could request that DCC continue to run Dolwen as they do now with cost savings being found elsewhere.  But it was resolved on the night that there was sufficient appetite in the room to take this request further.
It was pointed out that DCC had not even considered the status quo as an option under point 3 (above). It is still unclear why that is the case. There is no doubt that from the mood of the room (as pointed out by the Chair), the mood of the recent meeting at the Plas Pigot (attended by 120 people), a facebook group with over 500 members and a petition with over 120 signatures that option 3 is quite clearly the preferred option.

Early on in the evening, Raymond Bartley (County Councillor for Lower Denbigh, Leader of Denbigh Town Council and Mayor of Denbigh) objected to personal criticisms levelled against him by unnamed individuals and cited his long association with and comittment to Dolwen. He was subsequently asked about the content of recent Denbigh Town Council minutes which stated that, "Councillor Raymond Bartley reported that Dolwen would become an EMI/EMH home run by a private company retaining the current staff. The staff and unions were happy". He accused the questioner of lying but the minutes still stand in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Councillor Raymond Bartley remains a member of the five person Task and Finish Group previously alluded to and will therefore play an instrumental role in the future of Dolwen despite having prejudiced the outcome of the entire consultation process. 

Another member of the public asked for a show of hands to reflect how many of those present wanted Dolwen to stay as it is. Although the Chair said that this was not in his brief, a show of hands was duly made and the vast majority were in favour of Dolwen staying as it is. It is interesting to note that the latter was a gentleman of wide renown in Denbigh. The most senior man in the room, he captured the essence of the meeting. On the one hand, the local council was arguing tooth and nail in favour of privatisation and changing the focus of care to extra care in favour of the existing residential care. On the other side of the fence, local people had turned out yet again to shout their support for an institution which represents something beyond the bottom line of an accountants worksheet. The former argued for cost. The latter argued for care. In a nut-shell, this is what the consultation is all about. Whether the chosen few of eight people on the Cabinet of Denbighshire County Council have their way in spite of so many public protestations to the contrary remains to be seen. But the portents do not bode well. That is the sad reality.

Summary

1. DCC admit that they have no process in place for monitoring the existing needs of the elderly infirm in the county who require residential care rather than extra care (they have instead used national figures from 5 years ago).
2. The task and finish group will include Raymond Bartley who, as leader of Denbigh Town Council, is minuted as saying that Dolwen would become an EMI/EMH home run by a private company retaining the current staff and that the staff and unions were happy.
3.The task and finish group was established to examine value for money. They will advise Cabinet.
4. If running at capacity, the cost per week per resident in Dolwen would be £479.09.
5. The current figure paid by DCC per resident per week in private homes is £465.90.
6. The latest CSSIW report for Dolwen is excellent. The corresponding reports for private homes in the locality make many recommendations for improvement.
7. Any future site of Dolwen is not detailed. As such, residents and their families will be compromised by dubious public transport reliability and no guarantees on Welsh language provision.
8. Extra care will inevitably lead to greater levels of loneliness compared to places like Dolwen, Awelon and Cysgod y Gaer.
9. Keeping Dolwen as it is was not even presented as an option in this consultation so it is hard to see how this can be seen as a proper consultation.
10. DCC's own pre-consultation exercise established that residents and their families were most concerned about bilingual language provision and potential transport challenges for visiting.
11. DCC allude to alternative provision but give no details on where that might be, how many places are available or whether that provision will stay in Denbigh like Dolwen always has been.
12. The consultation has failed to reflect the future need so can not plan for future provision.
13. One of the options is to effectively give the Dolwen site to a private provider so that they can save a purported £75k per annum on maintenance costs. No details have been given in relation to this figure and another county asset will be lost to the public purse.
14. Public opposition to DCC plans is well established with 120 people recently attending an open public meeting, a facebook group with over 550 members (for Dolwen alone), a petition with over 120 signatures (handed in), over 200 consultation forms completed and handed in (that we know of).
15. Many local people approached groups like Denbighshire Voice Llais Sir Ddinbych for help in completing the forms for a variety of reasons. Some couldn't access the form in their preferred language. Some couldn't access the supporting documents upon which the questions are based. Some just needed help trying to unravel the corporate language. We are quite sure that many more would have engaged with this had the forms been  more widely and freely accessible.
16. In short, there is no public appetite for these proposals. Dolwen remains a highly prized community asset which local people would rather remain under local authority control.

Will the Junior Doctors strike?

Having successfully averted a strike by junior doctors before Christmas, the Health Secretary arguably won the battle but not the war. It is evident that the BMA is doing all it can to stir up discord among the new recruits and this spells bad news for everyone. A junior doctor with a penchant for industrial action will go on to become even more militant as they sail through their subsequent careers.

But what exactly is driving this militant tendency? Is it really all to do with money? Well, from my own experience, I would say a resounding "yes". I can never forget the experience from my first week at Medical School in 2008. A First Aid trainer asked first year medical students off the record to give the main reason for choosing to pursue a career in medicine. To my utter shock and horror, the majority cited money as their principle motivator. Am I the only one to be horrified by that? I naively assumed that people were choosing a career in medicine principally to make a difference to people. Evidently, I was mistaken.

It is instructive to examine just how poorly paid a junior doctor really is. A basic salary of about £22,000 does sound pretty meagre on the face of it. With banded rotations in which they are expected to work the long hours of on-calls, week-ends and nights, that figure often increases to about £30,000. And the hours are very long with lots of stress and pressure having to work in sparsely staffed environments in which patient care is all too often compromised.

As far as I understand, the Health Secretary is proposing to address this by alleviating the strain on junior doctors. Given their obvious inexperience at this stage in their fledgling careers, one might expect them to be cock-a-hoop about such a suggestion. It is evident that too many have entered the profession first and foremost to earn with care coming a little while after that. As much as I have come to loathe the Machiaevellian approaches of the Tory Party, this is one area where they seem to have got things right. My advice to the junior doctors would be this: Careful what you wish for. If they go ahead with their threat to strike, they will ultimately alienate a public whose primary aim has changed very little over the years - to be cared for in their hour of need.

The junior doctors of today will soon enough become the surgeons, consultants and general practitioners of tomorrow with salaries beyond the comprehension of the many. Maybe the time has come to reappraise selection for medical school?

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.