nhs

Little by way of comment on this, unedited and complete, document, largely because it’s unbelievable, cringe-worthy and amateurish. Look out for the following, I hesitate to call them highlights:

Comparing the economy of Canada to the NHS!

Giving changes achieved in organisations in terms of percentages without stating the baseline

Making recommendations that appear to be entirely contrary to the practices recommended by McKinsey in England

If this is the quality of work these parasites are making hundreds of millions out of no wonder they hide so much behind ‘commercial confidentiality’

a3-1
a3-3
a3-4
a3-5
a3-6
a3-7
a3-8
a3-9
a3-10
a3-2
a3-11
a3-12
a3-13
a3-14
a3-15
a3-16
a3-17
a3-18
a3-19
a3-20
a3-21
a3-22
a3-23
a3-24
a3-25
a3-26
a3-27
a3-28
a3-29
a3-30
a3-31
a3-32
a3-33
a3-34
a3-35
a3-36
a3-37
a3-38
a3-39
a3-40
a3-41
a3-42
a3-43
a3-44
a3-45
a3-46
a3-47
a3-48
a3-49
a3-50
a3-51
a3-52
a3-53
a3-54
a3-55
a3-56
a3-57
a3-58
a3-59
a3-60
a3-61
a3-62
a3-63
a3-64
a3-65
a3-66
a3-67
a3-68
a3-69
a3-70
a3-71
a3-72
a3-73
a3-74
a3-75
a3-76
a3-77
a3-78
a3-79
a3-80
a3-81
a3-82
a3-83
a3-84
a3-85
a3-86
a3-87
a3-88
a3-89
a3-90
a3-91
a3-92
a3-93
a3-94
a3-95
a3-96
a3-97
a3-98
a3-99

a3-100
a3-101
a3-102
a3-103
a3-104
a3-105
a3-106
a3-107
a3-108
a3-109

Again the entire document is reproduced in full. Annotations have been made where something of interest was noted. Anyone interested in what McKinsey proposals could mean for patient charges at the point of use should go directly to slides 118 onwards.

As this document is very slipshod a fair amount of annotation has been made.

Some notes made during perusal of this document:

There is a recommendation for an acute GP Unit in Cornwall, the county that has recently had one GP to cover all out of hours provision supplied by a private company! (Slide 10)

Warren Farm is not open overnight (Slide 13)

Up front costs are required for example to satisfy the recommendation that all nurses and specialist carrying out home visits be supplied with GPS/Tablets/PC – no costs appear to be assigned to this suggestion.

The sources quoted on many slides appear refer to results obtained from ‘one English hospital or ‘one English PCT’

Many sources quoted go back as far as 2001.

One would hope that reducing the amount of drugs supplied to patients doesn’t include pain medication!

The argument that there is an inverse relationship between the size of the purchasing costs and the possible savings from reduced drug prices would seem to argue against the McKinsey model being followed in England! (Slide 69)

In addition to using data from 2001 they also appear to be using US data as a proxy for the NHS (Slide 76)

Slide 73 indicates a potential saving that doesn’t take account of savings already achieved? Slide 81 then repeats the same savings figure without the caveat?

Whether a slide is marked ‘indicative’ or ‘illustrative’ appears to be arbitrary throughout.

Slide 112 appears to have the spin inbuilt – giving a gross figure that ignores a known figure of already achieved savings.

NOTE: Trawling through this bull for hours now some errors may have been made that do not flow from the document. Tough; they should have published them for publid discussion!

Reshaping the System Part 2

a2-1
a2-2
a2-3
a2-4
a2-5
a2-6
a2-7
a2-8
a2-9
a2-10
a2-11
a2-12
a2-13
a2-14
a2-15
a2-16
a2-17
a2-18
a2-19
a2-20
a2-21
a2-22
a2-23
a2-24
a2-25
a2-26
a2-27
a2-28
a2-29
a2-30
a2-31
a2-32
a2-33
a2-34
a2-35
a2-36
a2-37
a2-38
a2-39
a2-40
a2-41
a2-42
a2-43
a2-44
a2-45
a2-46
a2-47
a2-48
a2-49
a2-50
a2-51
a2-52
a2-53
a2-54
a2-55
a2-56
a2-57
a2-58
a2-59
a2-60
a2-61
a2-62
a2-63
a2-64
a2-65
a2-66
a2-67
a2-68
a2-69
a2-70
a2-71
a2-72
a2-73
a2-74
a2-75
a2-76
a2-77
a2-78
a2-79
a2-80
a2-81
a2-82
a2-83
a2-84
a2-85
a2-86
a2-87
a2-88
a2-89
a2-90
a2-91
a2-92
a2-93
a2-94
a2-95
a2-96
a2-97
a2-98
a2-99
a2-100
a2-101
a2-102
a2-103
a2-104
a2-105
a2-106
a2-107
a2-108
a2-109
a2-110
a2-111
a2-112
a2-113
a2-114
a2-115
a2-116
a2-117
a2-118
a2-119
a2-120
a2-121
a2-122
a2-123
a2-124
a2-125
a2-126
a2-127
a2-128
a2-129

Given the following presentation includes as ‘evidence’:

Press Articles

‘Indicative’ Figures (aka a guess)

Interviews (aka anecdote)

Presentations to Investors

The one suggestion which surprises by its omission is: STOP PAYING THESE CHARLATANS A FORTUNE TO PRODUCE THIS DRIVEL!

As with all the documents dealing with this subject this is produced unedited and in its entirety.

nihealth1
nihealth2
nihealth3
nihealth4
nihealth5
nihealth6
nihealth7
nihealth8
nihealth9
nihealth10
nihealth11
nihealth12
nihealth13
nihealth14
nihealth15
nihealth16
nihealth17
nihealth18
nihealth19
nihealth20
nihealth21
nihealth22
nihealth23
nihealth24
nihealth25
nihealth26
nihealth27
nihealth28
nihealth29
nihealth30
nihealth31
nihealth32
nihealth33
nihealth34
nihealth35
nihealth36
nihealth37
nihealth38
nihealth39
nihealth40
nihealth41
nihealth42
nihealth43
nihealth44 - Copy
nihealth45 - Copy
nihealth46 - Copy
nihealth47 - Copy
nihealth48 - Copy
nihealth49 - Copy
nihealth50 - Copy
nihealth51 - Copy
nihealth52 - Copy
nihealth53 - Copy
nihealth54 - Copy
nihealth55 - Copy
nihealth56 - Copy
nihealth57 - Copy
nihealth58 - Copy
nihealth59
nihealth60
nihealth61
nihealth62
nihealth63
nihealth64
nihealth65
nihealth66
nihealth67
nihealth68
nihealth69
nihealth70
nihealth71
nihealth72
nihealth73
nihealth74
nihealth75
nihealth76
nihealth77
nihealth78
nihealth79
nihealth80
nihealth81
nihealth82
nihealth83
nihealth84
nihealth85
nihealth86
nihealth87
nihealth88
nihealth89
nihealth90
nihealth91
nihealth92
nihealth93
nihealth94
nihealth95
nihealth96
nihealth97
nihealth98
nihealth99
nihealth100
nihealth101
nihealth102
nihealth103
nihealth104
nihealth105
nihealth106
nihealth107
nihealth108
nihealth109
nihealth110
nihealth111
nihealth112
nihealth113
nihealth114
nihealth115
nihealth116
nihealth117
nihealth118
nihealth119
nihealth120
nihealth121
nihealth122
nihealth123
nihealth124
nihealth125
nihealth126
nihealth127
nihealth128
nihealth129
nihealth130
nihealth131
nihealth132
nihealth133
nihealth134

Not sure if they actually meant to post these documents but, as a public service I will provide over the next few pages the documents shown in the image below:

Links to McKinsey Report Files and Appendices

Image showing links to McKinsey Report Files and Appendices

Former Harmoni clinician warns of ‘dangerous’ pressure on appointments

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/17/harmoni-dangerous-pressure-appointments?INTCMP=SRCH

When Dr Fred Kavalier, the former clinical lead at Harmoni, resigned in January 2011, he forwarded to the senior management concerns raised by a Harmoni GP who warned that cuts in the service had led to “dangerous” pressure on appointments. The GP feared this “could lead to mistakes being made … the current system is putting patients’ health at severe risk”.

…Nonetheless, Harmoni won the latest tender for the out of hours GP service in north central London. Documents seen by the Guardian show that other shortlisted bidders outscored it on quality, but Harmoni was cheaper.

Medics critical of the company allege it has cut costs to the point of making the service unsafe. Local doctors‘ representatives have also raised concerns that the NHS commissioning body responsible for the private contracts does not have the capacity to award or monitor them effectively.

The North Central London primary care trust was formed in April 2011, when five local PCTs covering the London boroughs of Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey and Islington were required to merge as part of the government’s health reforms.

The number of health managers for the area has been cut by more than half, with many staff – including those with financial and contract expertise – leaving the service.

Dr Paddy Glackin, who was until this summer secretary of the Local Medical Committee of GPs in the area, said the re-awarding of the out of hours GP contract to Harmoni was met “with almost universal dismay among local GPs”.

His comments are supported by interviews conducted by the Guardian with several other local GPs, who also claimed records of patient contact received from Harmoni were inadequate; that decisions about treatment appeared to them to be made on the grounds of cost and payment rather than clinical need; that their patients were regularly told inappropriately to go to A&E or to clinics; and that home visits that should have been made were not.

…..

Harmoni says it is able to deliver high quality services for a lower cost than other providers because it specialises in out of hours care: “Because of this we are more operationally efficient than smaller providers … We refute entirely any suggestion that we have cut costs in a way that compromises the quality of the service.”The PCT told the Guardian the joint working of the five former PCTs had been a success and had reduced duplication and streamlined working.

Harmoni was formed as a joint venture between the ECI private equity group and a GP co-operative in 2005; its then £3m-a-year turnover grew to £100m in 2011. It began as a company through which GPs in Harrow could provide out of hours services to their patients, grew to provide a deputising service for several other London boroughs, and then attracted private equity investors.

Its spectacular growth has been won by bidding for the sort of NHS and government contracts that have typically been seen by the private sector as bridgeheads into the market for outsourced public services. It has provided healthcare for prisoners and victims of sexual assault, IT services, some walk-in health centres, and a referral management service of the sort increasingly used by PCTs to double-check, and in some cases weed out, GPs’ referrals to hospital specialists before they go ahead, as well as out of hours GP services under contract to swaths of London and southern England, including Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hampshire, North Somerset, Suffolk, Surrey, Warwickshire, West Sussex and Worcestershire.

…..The Harmoni accounts for the year ending March 2012 reported that the operating company, HWH Group, was “ahead of plan”. It required £2.7m of new cash from investors to keep it going, but had cut its losses from £1.6m the previous year to £1.4m, and reported implementing “cost-saving measures”.

One step up the corporate structure, with its complex shareholdings designed to make sure the private equity partners had first call on any repayments of debts, things were not looking so good.

A loss of £9m, in part due to the interest payments on its debt to the ECI partners, had sent its net assets tumbling to just £2m. The company could only be treated as a going concern because the private investors agreed to waive and roll up the interest payments owing to them. They made clear, however, that they were doing so for a further 12 months only on the assumption that a sale would repay their debt in full.

A sale of the operating company duly followed. Although the company was not making money, the NHS contracts it had won, with their guaranteed income and cashflow from taxpayers, had considerable value. It was announced that Care UK – another private health company, owned by private equity partners Bridgepoint – had acquired Harmoni for £48m on 6 November, just three days after the death of a baby at the Harmoni-run clinic at the Whittington hospital in north London.

ECI took £20m, or 40% of the sale price, and GPs who had owned the rest of the shares since its co-operative days became millionaires. ECI said in a press release that it was pleased with its successful exit from the investment.

The Guardian asked where any profits, due to a series of separate partnership companies, would fall for tax purposes. It said that ECI was UK resident.

The firm acquiring Harmoni and its NHS contracts, Care UK, was acquired by the Bridgepoint private equity fund in 2010 for £423m. It runs more than 50 primary care health services, mental health services and about 90 care homes across the country. More than 90% of its revenues in 2012 came from the UK taxpayer.

The company attracted controversy in 2010 when it emerged that its then chairman, John Nash, had funded Andrew Lansley’s private office in the runup to the general election.

Lansley, the shadow health secretary, was at the time drawing up his plans for reform of the NHS, including measures that would open the health service further to the market and private contractors such as Care UK.

Guardian, Dec 18 2012

Michael Gove appoints Tory donor John Nash as education minister

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jan/10/gove-appoints-john-nash-education-minister?INTCMP=SRCH

John Nash, a wealthy Tory donor, venture capitalist and enthusiastic sponsor of academies, has been appointed an education minister in a move that will delight those seeking faster reform by the education secretary, Michael Gove. He will be rushed into a peerage to make him the voice of education reform in the Lords but he is also likely to become a key figure in Gove’s team at the education ministry.

Nash and his wife have given nearly £300,000 to the Conservative party since 2006, Electoral Commission records show and the Department for Education confirms.

Guardian, January 10 2013

And just for good measure

How many govt posts are actually up for sale?

How many govt posts are actually up for sale?

Here is the wonderful man in full flow – fact free, right wing bull. Maybe all those ALEC-sponsoring healthcare companies are happy to get his services so cheaply

 

For US viewers to this post I recommend this post http://becauseican-2old2care.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/hannan-ukmep-alec-hates-uk-medical.html#comment-form

Note the comment:

I have COPD and a neurological condition and I live in Scotland.

Bill for GP consultations – £0
Bill for specialist consultations – £0
Bill for MRI and DAT scans £0
Bill for blood tests £0
Bill for occupational physiotherapy – £0
Bill for prescriptions – £0

 

 

It is possible that some actually take the Centre for Social justice, set up by proven liar Iain Duncan Smith, seriously. If it weren’t seeking to justify so much harm this would be a farcical state of affairs. Here is an example of their failure to meet even a basic level of literacy never mind anything else.

Reality v Rethinking Child Poverty

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/flash/CSJ_Child_Poverty_second%20version.pdf

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, will today take the first steps to downgrade the Labour government’s commitment to eradicate child poverty in 2020 by announcing that he is to publish a green paper looking at a range of new non-income indicators of poverty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/child-poverty-target-tories-move June 13,2102

The controversy of this new approach, which the Centre for Social Justice has been advocating and Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, is now looking to adopt with the announcement that he is to consult on additional non-income indicators of poverty, surprises people in the real world.  Let’s hope a serious debate follows about developing measures for things such as the number of children living in workless households and attending failing schools, the number of children who have parents with mental health problems, or severe personal debt or addictions.

Merely persisting in the pursuit of marginal income tweaks to chase numbers on a graph would fail the children who most need our help. With the right approach, think what could be achieved for those children at the side of the road.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/children-poverty-figures June 14, 2012

————————————————————————————————-

From 2003, yes 2003

The most recent (fifth) Opportunity for all report was published in September 2003.

The indicators which are tracked in Opportunity for all reflect the Government’s view that poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon.

There are separate indicators for three population groups – children and young people, people of working age and older people – and an additional set of indicators for communities.

The indicators for children and young people, for example, comprise:

· Children in workless households

· Low income (relative, absolute and persistent measures)

· Teenage pregnancy (teenage conceptions, and teenage parents not in education,employment or training)

· Key Stage 1 (7-year-olds) attainment in Sure Start areas

· Key Stage 2 (11-year-olds) attainment

· 16-year-olds with at least one GCSE

. 19-year-olds with at least a Level 2 qualification

· Truancies · School exclusions

· Educational attainment of children looked after by local authorities

· 16- to 18-year-olds in learning

· Infant mortality · Serious unintentional injury

· Smoking rates (for pregnant women, and children aged 11–15)

· Re-registrations on Child Protection Register

· Housing that falls below the set standard of decency

(The DWP no longer produce Opportunity for All Reports - see below)

————————————————————————————————-

Poverty is not just about income

The Government says that poverty is not just about income; it is about a lack of opportunity,
aspiration and stability. Yet its own measure of child poverty, which was inherited from the
previous Government, fails to capture this
. The narrow income-related targets set out in the
Child Poverty Act incentivise the Government to throw ever-increasing sums of money at
the problem. However, on the basis of overwhelming evidence from the UK’s most deprived
communities, the CSJ is clear that poverty is a multifaceted phenomenon which cannot be
eradicated without an acknowledgement of its key drivers: family breakdown, educational
failure, economic dependency and worklessness, addiction and serious personal debt. These
drivers diminish the future opportunities of a child and so must also be at the heart of any
serious attempt to measure poverty.

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/flash/CSJ_Child_Poverty_second%20version.pdf

What does the Act actually say?

Child Poverty Act 2010

An Act to set targets relating to the eradication of child poverty, and to make other provision about child poverty.

[25th March 2010]

9 UK strategies

(1)The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament the first UK strategy.

(2)A “UK strategy” is a strategy under this section setting out the measures that the Secretary of State proposes to take—

(a)for the purpose of complying with section 2 (duty to ensure that targets are met), and
(b)for the purpose of ensuring as far as possible that children in the United Kingdom do not experience socio-economic disadvantage.

(3)A UK strategy may also refer to proposals of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or the relevant Northern Ireland department.
(4)Before the end of the period to which a UK strategy relates, the Secretary of State must review the strategy and publish and lay before Parliament a revised UK strategy, but this subsection does not apply after the beginning of the target year.
(5)In preparing a UK strategy, the Secretary of State must consider what (if any) measures ought to be taken in each of the following areas—

(a)the promotion and facilitation of the employment of parents or of the development of the skills of parents,
(b)the provision of financial support for children and parents,
(c)the provision of information, advice and assistance to parents and the promotion of parenting skills,
(d)physical and mental health, education, childcare and social services, and
(e)housing, the built or natural environment and the promotion of social inclusion.

(6)When considering for the purpose of a UK strategy what measures ought to be taken in relation to each of those areas, the Secretary of State—

(a)must consider which groups of children in the United Kingdom appear to be disproportionately affected by socio-economic disadvantage, and
(b)must consider the likely impact of each measure on children within each of those groups.

(7)A UK strategy must—

(a)where it relates to a period ending before the end of the target year—

(i)describe the progress that the Secretary of State considers needs to be made by the end of the period to which the strategy relates if the targets in sections 3 to 6 are to be met in relation to the United Kingdom in relation to the target year, and
(ii)describe the other progress that the Secretary of State intends to make by the end of the period to which the strategy relates in achieving the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(b), and

(b)describe the progress that the Secretary of State intends to make by the end of the target year in achieving the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(b), otherwise than by ensuring that the targets are met.

(8)A UK strategy other than the first must also—

(a)describe the measures taken in accordance with the previous UK strategy and the measures taken in accordance with a Scottish strategy, a Welsh strategy or a Northern Ireland strategy,
(b)describe the effect of those measures on progress towards meeting the targets in sections 3 to 6, and
(c)describe other effects of those measures that contribute to the achievement of the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(b).

(9)References in this section to the period to which a UK strategy relates are references to the period beginning with the date on which the UK strategy is laid before Parliament and—

(a)except in the case of a UK strategy laid before Parliament less than 3 years before the beginning of the target year, ending 3 years later, and
(b)in that excepted case, ending with the target year.

The CSJ report continues:

A new approach to measuring child poverty

The Child Poverty Act requires the Government to develop a Child Poverty Strategy which will be revised every three years. We broadly welcome the Coalition’s first Strategy, Tackling the Causes of Disadvantage and Transforming Families’ Lives, as it signals a shift away from the narrow income-based poverty targets.The inclusion of family circumstances, children’s life chances and family structure as indicators are positive additions. However, as it stands, only the family resources section of the strategy (i.e. income poverty) is legislated for under the Child Poverty Act.

Conclusion

The CSJ strongly believes that any strategy to tackle poverty should focus on the root causes of deprivation and the social breakdown which fuels it, not the symptoms. Yet the way the previous Government conceptualised and sought to measure poverty is deeply flawed. The legacy of this is a narrow and one-dimensional Child Poverty Act which focuses solely on income and material deprivation. This is despite huge swathes of evidence to demonstrate that poverty is about far more than this.

The National Action Plans on Social Exclusion

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/policy-publications/uk-national-report/uk-national-action-plan/

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/annex03.pdf

This replaced the Opportunity for All Report in 2008.

The new reporting framework agreed with the European Commission states that in describing the social situation in the National Action Plan ‘Member States are expected to use at least the primary indicators in their national strategy reports, if only to remind themselves that in the context of the EU social inclusion process poverty and social exclusion are a relative concept that encompasses income, access to essential durables, education, health care, adequate housing, distance from the labour market.

It is virtually incredible that anyone should take the CSJ seriously as a reliable, trustworthy or worthwhile contributor to the debate on poverty.

Governing for the Rich

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/ceo-summit/article3443422.ece#

40ptax

Business must shout louder for the merits of lower taxes or the Government will be unable to cut the top rate of income tax to 40p, George Osborne warned yesterday.

The Chancellor said that Britain was vulnerable to a return to the “politics of envy” and that anti-business sentiment was on the rise.

Mr Osborne accepted that the Budget had caused “lots of bad headlines”, but he chastised bosses for the “near silence” with which they had greeted his politically tough decision to lower the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p. And he urged business leaders to be much more vocal in helping the Conservatives to make the case for a low tax economy and a smaller State. Without such support Chancellors would find it hard to “put their necks on the line” for cuts in the top rate of tax.

Did he say necks on the line?

JUSTICE3


Back to the Future

Remember the 30+ changes to unemployment figures in the 80’s and the moving of people onto IB to keep the dole statistics lower than was really the case?

Tory Central Command remember. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18351730

The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) has condemned NHS trusts in England for changing the criteria for operations, leading to some patients being taken off operation waiting lists.

Some trusts have “re-categorised” patients as no longer needing surgery, a BBC investigation has found.

RCS president Prof Norman Williams says the practice is “outrageous” and “worrying”.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says treatment should not be rationed.

Under the NHS constitution no patient in England should wait longer than 18 weeks for treatment after referral from their GP, and NHS trusts face heavy fines for having too many people waiting longer than the set target.

However, BBC Radio 4′s File on 4 programme has discovered that in some areas of England patients initially assessed as needing operations have subsequently been re-categorised as no longer in need of surgery – meaning they effectively vanish from waiting list statistics.


Unemployment as Crime

Workfare requires the unemployed do unpaid work, ostensibly for the benefit of the community. Want to know what the punishment is for drink-driving?

compayback1

Seems the only difference between unemployment and criminality is who mandates your compulsory unpaid work.


Rather Poor than European

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100017828/if-the-euro-broke-up-uk-would-be-back-in-current-account-surplus/

The last thing Britain needs is a successful European superstate on its doorstep. If it ever came about, we’d have little option but to join.

Yes, ideology better than prosperity in the minds of the right.


Up to half of ‘jobless’ may be working in the black economy as thousands forfeit their handouts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158477/Up-half-jobless-working-black-economy-thousands-forfeit-handouts.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Almost half of jobless people told to do unpaid work are opting to forfeit their handouts instead.

The figures show that many benefit claimants are working in the black economy, according to employment minister Chris Grayling.

They would rather give up their welfare payments than forego their undeclared earnings, he said.

Chris Grayling, Minister for Employment, has said the Government is aware there are people out there working on the quiet whilst claiming benefits

‘I sat through an interview with a young man in a job centre who was working for a few hours a week, below the benefit threshold, at a local nightclub,’ he told the Mail. ‘But he’d missed the previous week’s signing-on interview, and was told he’d be losing a week’s money as a result. He just shrugged.

‘No one just shrugs if they lose a week’s money, and they’ve got no other means of support. But proving it is easier said than done.

That was one important reason why we introduced a month’s full-time activity in the community for jobseekers who are clearly not pulling their weight, or working in the black market.’

If only Jeremy Hunt had shrugged we’d have conclusive proof that the lying bastard was guilty of trying to rubber stamp the introduction of FOX News UK. Oh, sorry, did I slip into emotive language?

‘I’ve met people who freely admit to having been feckless and lazy, but who have found a working environment to be enjoyable and rewarding, and have started to take the whole job search process seriously as a result,’ Mr Grayling said.

So the Minister for Forced Labour  was expanding the Mandatory Work Activity..but wait…. they couldn’t possibly slip out a report in the middle of the night and hope nobody was looking? http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2012/early_impacts_mwa.pdf

Unlike for benefit impacts, MWA referrals showed no employment impacts.

Yes, we all know by now that DWP Ministers are totally lacking in anything approaching morality, a prerequisite for a job in which one of the duties is denying that the increasing number of deaths and suicides is anything to do with policy decisions.

How does the Minister respond to the report? http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/13/mandatory-work-scheme-government-research?newsfeed=true

“This was a scheme our own Jobcentre Plus advisers wanted to introduce. This impact analysis only covers the first three months of the programme a year ago and is already out of date.

“What it shows is we had teething problems in the first three months and since then we’ve taken a number of steps to tighten loopholes and are continuing to do so. It’s a relatively new and experimental scheme which is improving all the time.”

Oh that’s alright then, the figures are unreliable and shouldn’t be quoted.

Up to half of ‘jobless’ may be working – James Chapman, Daily Mail

UP to a third of benefits claimants have secret jobs in Britain’s black economy – The Sun

NEARLY half of unemployed people got out of a compulsory work scheme – Daily Express

So having expanded a scheme that doesn’t work according to figures from an official report, that he dismisses as inaccurate, it seems the DWP were quite happy to brief the press using figures from the same report!

I wonder what the punishment would be for someone who breaks the rules and benefits sufficiently to fund a house? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1180656/Attack-dog-Tory-Chris-Grayling-brought-heel-properties.html

Chris Grayling, who already owned three houses within the M25, used thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to help fund a fourth home in London.

Oh, it seems he didn’t break the rules he ‘did a deal’ with the regulator, well isn’t that nice! When I was unemployed they allowed me to keep £5 from a part-time job I was doing to keep my skills up, when I asked if I could claim for the £6 in travelling costs they said no, but as long as rich hypocrites are doing fine that’s alright.


Liberal Democrats have a New Mascot

libdemmascotJeremy Cable


Let’s Update the Civil Service

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158492/Now-lazy-ineffective-civil-servants-face-losing-jobs-sweeping-reforms.html

Tens of thousands more civil servants face losing their jobs over the next three years under sweeping reforms which will see the size of Whitehall slashed by a quarter, ministers were told yesterday.

Well someone has to do the work

The plan, expected to be unveiled next week, will also call for government policy-making to be contracted out to academics and think-tanks.

Spending plans decided by Taxpayers Alliance, Employment by the IOD, auditing by IEA…. wonderful, fools, criminals and liars in government paying fools, criminals and liars to make policy. Well it can’t get any worse than that.

Lord O’Donnell, the former Cabinet Secretary, called for major reforms to Whitehall including the sponsoring of some Treasury civil servants by the City.

Fuck me, I was wrong, the banks won’t have to ask for a bail-out and the execs won’t face attacks on their bonuses because they’ll be making the fucking rules, investigating breaches and imposing the remedies!


Minister for Social Cleansing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9328319/Teachers-and-police-face-end-to-life-on-the-cheap-in-council-houses.html

 

Sorry, I thought I’d finished but another millionaire hypocrite wanted in on the action, step forward Grant Shapps.

Grant Shapps, the housing minister, will announce a consultation shortly on new rules to charge higher rents to tenants with a household income of more than £60,000.

Why?

“For far too long, millions of people on waiting lists have watched helplessly as high–earning social tenants continue to occupy homes designed to help the most vulnerable,” he said.

“These high–income tenants are not only blocking homes that could benefit those in greater housing need, they’re also relying on poorer taxpayers to subsidise their lifestyle.”

Whaaaaaaat?

Social housing was not built for the most vulnerable it was built for the residents in the areas where there were housing needs. The housing wouldn’t be blocked if fucking ideological arsenoses didn’t keep selling the stock off without replacing it, passing nimby charters and failing to build new homes. Perhaps the Minister would like to say what the subsidy is that these tenants receive as social housing has to be self-financing, indeed the government creams off money.

By the way did you notice the implied extra bonus? Yes, working people are going to means-tested on a household basis under a system of individual taxation.

“We want to call time on this blatant unfairness and these handouts to the very rich,” said Mr Shapps

But, but,..

Business must shout louder for the merits of lower taxes or the Government will be unable to cut the top rate of income tax to 40p, George Osborne warned yesterday.


I haven’t even mentioned Leveson, PMQ’s or the wonderful way that little shit Gove was told to behave or fuck off by Mr Speaker Bercow

Virtually the only newspapers to offer any support to those opposed to the Health & Social Care Bill were the Guardian and the Mirror.

This may have led many with disabilities, jobs in the NHS, opposition on philosophical grounds to for profit company involvement or other reasons to fear this draconian and arbitrary legislation to think of this newspaper as being on ‘their side’.

I leave this screenshot with you for your consideration:

g1

Overview:

aphg1

Reason for allowing members from outside parliament:

aphg2

Parliamentary Officers

aphg3

The ‘Associate Members’

aphg4

This partnership of politicians and corporates lies at the heart of ALEC, it is somewhat disturbing to find it mirrored, and officially supported, within the parliamentary process and with the participation of exactly the same corporations responsible for subverting the democratic process in the USA.

Entry in Parliamentary Register: