Funding care - or how to lose friends quickly...

****

From the Centre for Social Justice (so not to be sniffed at given its links to Iain Duncan Smith):

...we are consumed by a debate about how to protect the housing wealth of people who might need care in the future. Such a narrow focus about care funding ducks the crucial question: how do we build a competent and compassionate social care system fit for all, including the poorest?

Indeed, the entire aim appears to be avoiding having to tell nice middle-class folk like me that they'll have to sell mum's house when she goes into a home. Which of course means we won't inherit that money.

If we were not protected by the knowledge that taxpayers we've never met will cough up to provide us with care in our dotage then we would make provision ourselves. And be prepared to sell the house.

....

So doctors aren't in it for the money then?

****

It seems that our noble doctoring profession - the one that wants to maintain cosy little local monopolies rather than expose itself to competition - has other ways for its members to make huge amounts of money at the taxpayers expense:

The taxpayer-funded “notional rent” scheme allows GPs to buy buildings for their surgeries which they then “rent” back to the Department of Health for more than the mortgage repayments, according to the report.

Surgeries are then sold off when the GP retires and they are allowed to keep the profits from the sale of the building.

A nice little earner I think this is called:

The NHS paid GPs £630m in rent for their privately-owned surgeries last year, an increase of 70 per cent since 2004, when the figure stood at £370m.

The total cost to the Department of Health in the past five years has been £2.5bn.

But, as we know, the doctors aren't in it for the money - this is just a way of getting better premises - or so say the Department of Health (should we not rename it the department of making doctors even richer?):

"This system incentivises GPs to expand and improve services so that people have proper access to modern facilities. It represents the cost to GPs of renting or owning the premises, and is a cost that would met by government direct if GPs did not." 

So we pay more than the borrowing cost to GPs and allow them to keep the capital gain - all sounds a bit like how another "professional" group feathered their nests!

....

Campaign Comment: Funding Unions

Yesterday afternoon I was delivering in Denholme - rushing a bit as I had a meeting to get to and wanted to finish the round before setting off to Bingley. Coming out of one gate I spotted a young (well younger than me) man clutching my leaflet. He came across the street - by this time the leaflet was tightly folded up and clutched in his hand. Not a happy fellow.

"Is it really true that the Council pays for all these full-time union officials? That's taxpayers' money isn't it?"

I explain that, yes, Bradford Council does spend over £300,000 paying the wages of full-time Union officials - a figure that shocked me and took some prizing out of officers.

"Well I don't pay taxes for that. And it's the same with the Government - they're giving millions to the Unions."

Now that was news to me! So I checked and the young man was right:

The Union Modernisation Fund (UMF) is a grant scheme, launched by the previous government, providing financial assistance to independent trade unions and their federations for a limited period. It was designed to support innovative modernisation projects which contribute to a transformational change in the organisational effectiveness of a trade union. The UMF sought to enhance the ability of trade unions to meet the needs of their members and to make an effective contribution to constructive employment relations and the economy as a whole.

An appalling misuse of public money. And not just a small amount of taxpayers' money either - the Unite union alone received over £4 million from the last government. No wonder that Union was such a generous supporter of Labour!


Update: The TPA published their review of taxpayer funding for trades unions - it's more than I thought: £85m including £67.5m in payments to the 2,493 full time equivalent public sector employees working for trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense in 2009-10.

....

No.......

***

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the kind of meeting where the Chief Executive paints the gloomy picture of the business - pay freezes, shorter hours, no promotion raises and the dread spectre of the 'R' word - redundancy. I spent yesterday morning in one of those meetings - depressing stuff.

So imagine my delight when opening my council e-mail to read this:

Councillor

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAY AWARD 2010- 2011

We are writing to you as the UNISON members representing NJC workers in Bradford Council to make you aware of our members’ anger at the pay ‘freeze’ imposed on them for the 1 April 2010 – 2011 pay settlement. We believe that, as a councillor, you should be aware of this, particularly in a year of local – and the General – elections, when issues such as pay will obviously influence how our members vote. We are urging you to ask our council and the LGA to reconsider their support for an effective pay cut for our members this year.

There have been no negotiations over our pay this year. At the last meeting of the NJC Joint Secretaries – at which they were expecting to open negotiations – they were told that the Employers’ Side had decided that there would be no increase in pay for our members this year. We understand that there was cross-party consensus amongst LGA Group Leaders on this decision. We are surprised and disappointed at the decision itself and the manner in which it was arrived at. The consequences of it are likely to be very serious indeed – for our members, service users and for local government itself.....

The letter carries on in this mildly threatening vein for several more paragraphs ending with this:

Below-inflation pay increases in recent years have already left our members – your employees - struggling to make ends meet. As a councillor, we know that you will appreciate the vital contribution they make to local people in our local authority and will want to ensure that our council can continue to recruit and retain such dedicated staff. We are sure that you will be seeking their support to continue to provide vital services as redundancies and workloads increase, but they will be reluctant to do so with only a pay cut to reward them for their efforts! Their commitment is being severely challenged and you will appreciate that 1.6 million employees, their families and friends will be unlikely to show electoral support for those who appear to value them so little.

We would like to hear from you and would ask you to give us a response to the following questions:

Do you agree with this year’s pay cut for NJC workers in our council?
What was the budget for pay this year in its Medium Term Financial Plan in 2008-9?

How does this council intend to use the pay element of the formula grant from central Government?

If you support our members’ right to a pay increase this year, we would ask you to write to the Chairman of the LGA, Margaret Eaton, urging the LGA and the Local Government Employers to change their minds.

We look forward to a response to our letter.

With best wishes,


UNISON Rep

Well that just took the biscuit. I thought about writing a long, considered response but why should I bother?

Dear Unison Rep

Why should you get a pay rise when others (equally poorly paid and without your lovely index-linked final salary pension) are facing pay cuts - assuming of course they've kept their jobs.

You and your members don't have a "right" to a pay rise - you get one when it's affordable just like everyone else. And in case you haven't noticed there's not a great deal of spare cash around out there.

So do I support your case? In a word....

++++++++++NO++++++++++

Yours etc.


Cllr Simon Cooke

.....

Can we stop funding religions from taxpayers money please...

It was that UK's first "Inter Faith Week" last week and we find (the occasionally sensible but not this time) Communities Minister, John Denham saying we need a:

“deeper and broader relationship between Government and faith communities”.

And some places (like Regeneration & Renewal magazine) have got all silly and excited saying crap like:

"Because faith is a fact of life, just as all differences are, and people of faith surely have a right to be represented by government in the same way other minorities are."

This is really wrong - both factually and in its implications. But worse they are supporting this:

"Denham confirmed that £2 million in funding would be made available for faith-based community groups and announced a new panel of religious experts has been set up to advise Whitehall."

Spending our money on religion - that is wrong....and letting these assorted (and mostly self-appointed) religious leaders have a role in "advising" Whitehall should be stopped.

...