Month: September 2009

Categories
current affairs

More evidence that private treatment centres are expensive

Further to my earlier mega-post on health privatisation which focussed primarily on the local Sussex Orthopaedic Treatment Centre, some more news has emerged about the true cost of these privately run NHS centres:

  • The Times reports on a study of hip operations sent to a treatment centre in Weston-super-Mare where two-thirds of operations showed poor surgical technique and 3 years since operation a whopping 18% had undergone or were waiting for a revision operation. The NHS-wide rate for such follow-up procedures is 0.9%. These revision operations are expensive, so on top of the treatment centres being more expensive per procedure, they are also costing taxpayers more due to the remedial work needed.
  • The Times also has a comment piece by Michael Bell, President of the British Orthopaedic Association, which is critical on the lack of data to monitor quality and the disjointed nature of treatment centre operations.

Using the private sector to provide frontline NHS services not only runs contrary to the principle of public service, but again and again is shown to provide worse value and worse quality. Neither Tories nor Labour seem able to see beyond their false sacred cow of private = efficient.

Of course private companies do provide value and quality, look at the Apple iPod, but it’s a completely different market and set of pressures to providing public services. Perhaps if we stopped this trend of calling citizens ‘customers’ we could reset the mindset which seems to want to turn everything into a business.

Categories
notes from JK voting

A bad day for the public interest

What a strange day it has been. I’ve had a very productive time at work whilst lots of other things have been bubbling over:

  • London Elects and the Greater London Returning Officer (the people responsible for the London Mayoral and Assembly elections) had asked for responses to their cost-benefit analysis of manual vs e-counting in 2012. I had just completed ORG’s response earlier this week, which argued that given the £1.5m saving from going manual, there seemed to be no good reason for e-counting. Today was a ’round table’ to also explore issues covered in the analysis. However rather than being the consultation event we expected, ORG’s Executive Director was told that the decision to e-count the 2012 London election had already been taken. Not even a pretence of keeping an open mind! No proper debate or consideration has taken place, just a firm commitment to press ahead with e-counting regardless of costs or consequences.
  • Meanwhile in Brighton & Hove I submitted a formal request to Brighton & Hove City Council’s acting Chief Executive that he ‘call-in’ a decision made by the Tory Cabinet earlier this month. This means the decision is suspended and hopefully will be examined by a scrutiny committee. Why? Because the reports for the decision, over pedestrianising parts of East Street,  failed to include comments from any residents in spite of several having provided detailed objections. Council decisions cannot be based on consultations which have failed to include residents views. This just makes people (more) cynical about consultations and prevents decisions being taken on the balanced information.
  • Finally some Freedom of Information requests I put in some time ago have come to fruition, somewhat explaining why such huge rent rises are being demanded from seafront businesses. The reason? A big fat commission-based fee for the consultant leading the rent reviews for the Council. More details in “Huge consultant fees encourage seafront rent hikes“.
Categories
current affairs

Huge consultant fees encourage seafront rent hikes

Just published this press release, you can read more of the backstory in my earlier post.

SHOCK AT HUGE FEES EARNED BY COUNCIL’S SEAFRONT RENT RISE CONSULTANT

A Freedom of Information request submitted by Green City Cllr Jason Kitcat has revealed details of Brighton & Hove City Council’s contract with a firm of chartered surveyors hired to negotiate seafront rent rates.

The documents released show that aside from charging a monthly retainer, expenses and a ‘per unit’ fee, HLL Humberts Leisure receives a commission of 30 per cent of any rent increase they negotiate.*

The news comes after months of protests by seafront traders about rent increases of up to 300 per cent. **

Jason, who represents Regency Ward which includes the seafront from the Peace Statue to the Palace Pier, said:

“It’s no wonder the Council is pressuring seafront traders into massive rent increases when the consultant leading the process is going to be earning 30 per cent of the rises plus expenses.

“This is exactly the wrong approach to be taking with our unique, independent seafront businesses – and undermines Tory claims to support small business.

“Bad weather over the last few summers and the ongoing recession means life is already hard for many of the city’s seafront traders, but rather than bolster them through difficult times, the Tories seem determined to squeeze out every last drop.

“If we have empty arches along the seafront next year the Tory administration will be to blame.

“The fee structure the Council has agreed to with the consultant concerned means he wins, while local small businesses and taxpayers lose out. This would not be the Green approach at all. We accept the need for the Council to make a fair return from its properties, but not at the expense of our local businesses and tourist trade.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

* The documents released show that the consultant of HLL Humberts Leisure is charging the council £1,500 + VAT as a monthly retainer, receives 30 per cent of rent increases, expenses and disbursements as well as £150/hour for adjudications. Furthermore a minimum fee of £1,500 or more plus VAT is being set for each unit’s review regardless of the final increase agreed.

** Cllr Kitcat presented a petition on behalf of the Seafront Traders Association calling for a rethink on the council’s approach to seafront business rents on the 9th July 2009. More info at: http://www.brightonandhovegreenparty.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/press_releases/ALL/656/

Categories
notes from JK

“Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal” by Tristram Stuart: A review

It was through waste and recycling that I first became a ‘green’. At my junior school I remember putting posters up encouraging my fellow pupils to recycle more cans, paper and cardboard.

What we consider ‘waste’ is deeply telling on our attitudes to food, the environment and consumption. As any archeologist can attest, waste reveals huge amounts about a society.

That ‘western’ lifestyles are wasteful probably will come as no surprise to most of Tristram Stuart’s readers. But the scale of the problem and its full ramifications are not quite so easy to grasp. Through a considerable amount of travel, some serious number crunching and lots of dumpster diving Stuart paints the full, shameful picture of our food waste problem.

Reading Stuart’s book is deeply exasperating in many places, through no fault of the author. It’s just frustrating to see so many obvious solutions to many of the problems Stuart examines. That companies allow themselves to waste huge amounts of valuable resources is not only unethical but bad business. That so many governments have failed to adequately tackle waste is plain irresponsible. Food waste means less food for the hungry and an environmental cost paid to grow/raise food which is never consumed.

Rather than rehearse the whole book, which is excellent, I urge you to read it. The calculations on the true costs of food waste are eye-popping as are the estimates that roughly half of all food produced is wasted between plough and plate. It’s an engaging and deeply worthwhile book. Thank you Tristram.

Buy from Amazon: Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal
(I get a small referral if you use this link)

Categories
notes from JK

Links 10-09-2009

A few links I’d like to push your way:

  • “Disappointed, but hopeful”
    Rupert and my response to the result of the Green Party executive elections.
  • Stop Disconnection Without Trial
    Support the Open Rights Group’s campaign to stop Lord Mandelson’s barmy plan to disconnect suspected file-sharers.
  • Reheat Britain
    A much better idea than the car scrappage scheme — a boiler scrappage scheme. Of course upgrading boilers alone isn’t the answer, but it’s a start and while they’re there I’m sure the fitters will be keen to offer insulation and other energy efficiency services.
Categories
voting

Diebold sell their voting unit to ES&S

This morning we learn that Diebold have sold off their voting-machine business to ES&S, their main competitor. Between them Diebold and ES&S control around two-thirds of the US voting market.

Ever since the bad news about Diebold started rolling in a few years ago, they’ve been trying to ditch their voting unit. Security scares aren’t good for business when your main product is ‘secure’ cash machines and such like.

Having failed to find a seller they renamed their voting unit to ‘Premier Election Solutions’ in the hope that would at least protect them from some of the, ahem, reputational issues. How or why they now managed to get ES&S to purchase the unit know is not clear, but the tiny $5 million price tag must have been attractive.

Diebold expect to book a loss of $45 to 55 million on the deal, not exactly a marvellous return. Both Diebold’s and ES&S’ voting systems units were created by the Urosevich brothers so there’s some kind of closure in this transaction bringing the units together.

ES&S were one of the suppliers in the 2007 UK pilots including South Bucks which had significant problems and delays with their count.

In papers on the 2007 pilots released under the Freedom of Information act to the Open Rights Group, it was clear that the government wanted to avoid using Diebold at all costs because of the negative PR associated with them. If pilots are to happen again (which thankfully I think is unlikely) will ES&S be avoided too thanks to this acquisition?

This deal will represent significant consolidation in the voting market and unhealthy control in one company. I hope the US authorities carefully examine this deal, but if not it will be another signal to the rest of the world not to follow in their foot-steps when it comes to voting.

NY Times Report: “Diebold sells its voting machine unit to competitor”