There's another misguided attempt to extend the length of copyright terms in the European Parliament. This extension will help just a few record labels sitting on big libraries of hits, such an extension will make little or no difference for the vast majority of artists — despite claims for extension's supporters.
Rather than belabour the point, watch ORG's great video above and visit ORG's blog for more info and action to take.
December has been extremely hectic with lots of residents group meetings, council work and so on.
This month I’ve spoken to the Planning Committee to oppose the demoltion of the old Royal Alex. I’ve spoken to a very eager green assembly at Brighton & Hove High School for Girls, attended a wonderful ORG Advisory Board meeting, been to the Mayor’s Christmas Reception, attended an Audit Committee meeting and more…
The council meeting on 4th December was a marathon event running from 4pm until after 11pm. The Green Group presented a number of motions all with a common theme of health. (The motions are page 65 onwards in this PDF, with amendments in this separate PDF, the webcast is here).
I presented a motion expressing concerns over the NHS’ use of new contractual schemes that encourage the use of large, profit-driven corporations. I’ve written up my speech notes and the motion below. I provoked a furious response from both Tories and Labour who claimed I misunderstood the NHS where GP practices have ‘always been private’. Yes, they are private firms (partnerships usually) but they work on small scales within their communities. The corporations now coming into the arena are enormous, multinationals even. They can be running clinics and surgeries across the country with GPs, nurses and other staff on contracts, NOT as partners in the business. Not only does this change the quality of care and employment provided, it is already proving to be a more expensive way of providing healthcare. Why should we be spending more taxpayer money for healthcare when a portion of it goes to corporate profit?
I recognise that suppliers for equipment (like MRIs) or drug manufacturers also look for a profit, and sometimes that is a problem. But when we look at the frontline delivery of care being for-profit, I have serious concerns – as do others like Unison and The King’s Fund. I want as much of every taxpayer pound going to helping people and NOT to boosting the balance sheet of some distant corporation who will be taking money away from our local economy.
So on to the arguments in full (which have been updated to take into account some new information following the council meeting):
The motion I presented was about protecting NHS services from corporate profiteering. Its theme was about championing NHS staff and the great work they do. Two new contractual schemes have been created by the Labour government which are cause for serious concerns: ‘Alternative Provider Medical Services’ (APMS) and ‘Independent Specialist Treatment Centres’ (ISTC). These have been couched in terms of ‘innovation’ and ‘choice’ but what they in fact do is open NHS services to corporations instead of the traditional partnerships where profit stayed with the partners.
I know the good doctors, nurses and professionals of the NHS can innovate and they don’t need the threat of these contracts to do so.
I have two main concerns regarding these contracts: The quality of care they provide and the costs involved.
Quality of Care
The Sussex Orthopaedic Treatment Centre, a centre run by Care UK for our local hospital trust under an ISTC contract, has only recently emerged from ‘special measures’ from the Healthcare Commission who expressed serious concerns after an inspection.
The Healthcare Commission and Unison have both argued that there is insufficient data to monitor the quality of care at centres run under these contracts. (Sources: Healthcare Comm & Unison [PDF])
There have also been problems with commercial confidentiality being used to restrict or delay access to information on the centres’ operations and value for money measures. At the last meeting of Brighton & Hove’s Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee we were faced with such a situation (see 3.16 on page 34, for example, in this PDF). I formally requested the information through the Primary Care Trust and I am pleased that most of it has now been released (though it hadn’t been released to the Committee by the Council meeting, however a Tory and Labour speaker both had been directly sent the figures by the Trust ahead of the meeting).
Costs
These contracts are truly extraordinary, breathtaking for many unfamiliar with the details. The operators are paid regardless of the number of procedures they conduct, in the words of a Department of Health officer “Payment would be made in full even if the defined number of procedures had not been undertaken” (48.3 in the minutes). So if they are contracted to undertake 5,000 a year but only do 500, they will be paid as if they had done 5,000 — apparently to help them with the planning and capital investment required. But the corporations aren’t just paid the ‘standard’ NHS fee for a procedure used for internal accounting with NHS Trusts, no in fact they are paid a premium of at least 11.2% (See this letter).
No wonder the King’s Fund argue that the contracts are a drain on Primary Care Trusts’ finances (Source). At the last Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee a representative of the Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals Trusts admitted that they were losing £2-3 million a year on orthopaedic procedures alone. This was due to the SOTC taking only the most straightforward procedures (which would cost less than the notional fee) leaving the hospitals to take the complex cases which would cost more than the internal fee they would be paid by the NHS. (See 48.9 in the minutes) So not only was the SOTC being paid regardless of the number of procedures, but it was also cherry picking the most profitable patients leaving the NHS Trust to pick up bill for the complicated cases with co-moribidity. It’s no surprise then that in September The Observer reported that private firms are bidding on £1.25 billion worth of contracts in the NHS for these kinds of centres (Source: Observer). Care UK, who run the SOTC, are the number one provider for these contracts having last year dealt with 170,864 patients through their centres under these contractual arrangements (Source: Ben Bradshaw MP in Hansard). Care UK’s adjusted operating profit increased by 35% in 2007 and in the first half of 2008 by 37% (Care UK Financial Reports). Their Chief Executive earns over half a million pounds a year. Care UK have specifically credited ISTCs as being a source of their revenue growth. A few days after the council meeting at which I presented the motion, Care UK were announced as the preferred bidder for a new city health centre. No wonder Care UK sent so many people to attend our last Health committee meeting! After all the hedged answers here was the same corporation taking on another part of our city’s health services. Despite the growing credit crunch and economic downturn which is putting pressure on tax returns, the government are injecting tax payer money into corporate profit margins. They should instead be focussing on patients and the hard working public sector staff who care for them. I will keep fighting to protect the NHS and patient interest.
I issued two press releases on this here and here.
NOTICE OF MOTION: KEEPING NHS SERVICES PUBLIC
“Since 2006 large private companies have been able to take over or establish GP practices under ‘Alternative Provider Medical Services Contracts’ (APMSC). This new approach, where the need for corporate profit conflicts with patient needs, threatens the trusted model of a partnership of GPs owning and running a surgery for their patients. The city of Brighton & Hove now has five GP practices run by ChilversMcCrea Healthcare. This council notes with concern that in privately run NHS services including GP practices, polyclinics and independent specialist treatment centres (ISTCs):
* Bids from traditional GP partnerships are often undercut by multi-national health companies;
* Doctors work on shorter term contracts leading to increased staff turnover and dramatically less continuity of care for patients;
* Important information on the cost and level of service provided becomes hidden from scrutiny under the cloak of ‘commercial confidentialit
* Proposals are constructed to keep profitable services private while leaving publicly-funded services to pick up the complex, costly cases leaving any cost savings in private hands. UNISON, the King’s Fund and the House of Commons Health Committee have all raised concerns with these new contractual agreements. At the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s meeting on 5th November Brighton & Sussex Universities NHS Trust acknowledged a £2-3 million per annum loss for handling the complex cases left to them by the privately-run Sussex Orthopaedic Treatment Centre, which focuses only on simple cases without co-morbidity.
Given that the Brighton & Hove Primary Care Trust is currently calling for bids on a new GP-led healthcare centre; this council:
* Rejects the creeping privatisation of NHS service;
* Expresses concern over the financial impact of the Sussex Orthopaedic Treatment Centre;
* And asks the Chief Executive to write to Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Health and Darren Grayson, Chief Executive of the local PCT asking them to cease further APMSC and ISTC contracts and to reject corporate bids for the proposed GP-led health centre.”
Proposed by: Cllr Jason Kitcat Seconded by: Cllr Sven Rufus
Yesterday was a good day for local democracy. Local residents and historical societies agreed that the main building (“Lainson building”) at least should be saved and that the proposed scheme, which depended on demolition, was nowhere near good enough. Thankfully councillors on the planning committee agreed and overruled the officer recommendations to refuse permission to demolish or build.
TaylorWimpey, the developer behind the scheme, have not conducted themselves particularly well throughout this process. For example at the committee hearing yesterday they claimed there were 150 letters in support of their proposals. In fact not a single letter was received in support, but many were received in favour of the doctors’ surgery finding a new home, which TaylorWimpey proposed to be in their scheme. They have continually tried to use the issue of the surgery as a fig leaf to cover all the many other failings of their schemes (I’ve lost track of how many revisions we’ve been through, this is the second refusal at committee).
You can read the letter I helped draft in opposition to the scheme (PDF) on which I based my comments when I spoke to the committee. You can also see the whole committee meeting in video online too. I’m delighted the Alex lives on and I hope we can now see a scheme worthy of the site.
UPDATE: My press release on this has now been posted, and The Argus has quoted a great comment my Green colleague Cllr Paul Steedman made at the meeting.
This week I was delighted to read a new argument against an expansion in the use of nuclear powe. I've long opposed nuclear power and certainly am very much against the so called 'pragmatism' of expanding atomic energy to help meet climate change targets. The arguments against have always been clear-cut in my mind:
Nuclear power is hugely expensive, and is usually subsidised at eye watering tax-payer expense. Even with such subsidies there is debate whether it is truly price competitive if one factors in all the costs of extracting, transporting, processing and disposing of the uranium used in nuclear power stations.
Nuclear waste is an unsolved problem, most countries are using temporary facilities whilst a laborious process of trying to find a place to leave the waste long enough to let it stop being dangerously radioactive. This is a growing problem that will hang over generations to come. Why create such a risk for our children's children?
Nuclear power as a whole is a safety and health risk to workers and us, the public. Furthermore continued development and production of nuclear power technologies only serve to further the chances of a proliferation in nuclear weapons.
Nuclear power stations take a long time to build and come online. They perpetuate the centralised, long distance transmission model of electrical grids which waste huge amounts of energy through transport. They are the wrong type of approach to solve our clean energy needs and we could never get enough online in time to significantly reduce global emissions anyway.
Uranium is not a renewable fuel. It's dug out of the ground… Why depend on a fuel like that when the sun, wind and waves are free and never ending?
Further to this final point, Daniel Botkin wrote “The limits of nuclear power” a comment piece in the International Herald Tribune. In it he argues that if we could build enough nuclear power stations to replace all fossil fuels then on known available uranium reserves we would run out in less than five years. Including all known sources of uranium, even those deemed not viable for mining, Botkin says we would run out in 29 years.
To a more realistic scenario, increasing nuclear energy yearly so that by 2050 50% of world energy was nuclear. Botkin calculates that uranium would run out in 2019 (using available reserves figure) or 2038 (all known uranium).
He also notes that 'breeder' reactors, which generate more fuel than they use, are not viable yet and are dangerous.
So even if we run headlong to nuclear power it barely gives us any breathing room. And there are carbon costs in the construction of these behemoth stations. Much better to stick to renewables which can generate local electricity without the costs and inefficiences of distribution.
Nuclear power still isn't, and never has been, any kind of answer.
I believe the proposal for communal bins that Brighton & Hove’s Tory Administration waved through at their Cabinet Meeting last night is the wrong proposal being put forward in the wrong way. I’m not against communal bins on principle – but these ones in this way are not what our city needs.
Their introduction follows a flawed consultation process which did not meet the Cabinet Office’s code of practice for consultations — which applies to local authorities as much as it does to ministers. The consultation was run for barely a month when the minimum time set down by the code is 12 weeks. The code requires consultations to be provided online but this one wasn’t. A number of my constituents never received the consultation or saw only one for a building with multiple households. Allowing online responses could have helped remedy this.
More fundamentally however the Conservative communal bins do not deal with the key challenges waste and street tidyness pose for our city. Of course I want to see cleaner streets – who doesn’t? But I keep seeing and keep receiving photos of existing communal bins attracting mess, fly tipping, dumping and graffiti.
Binvelopes (the foldable containers to protect bin bags from attack by foxes and seagulls) were ruled out as being only a short term measure yet just a few weeks ago the use of binvelopes was expanded in the Hanover part of our city. How can they make sense there but not in Regency ward?
The nub of the matter lies with recycling however. There is already a problem with the existing communal bins — whenever I pass and look in I see lots of recyclables amidst the bin bags: cardboard, paper, glass, plastics. Surely it’s human nature to go for the path of least resistance. If people don’t have space to store rubbish in their flats then the same applies for recyclables. Yet the council expects residents to sit on recyclables for a week but chuck rubbish whenever they like into the big communal bins which are emptied six days a week.
A 2004 University of Brighton study commissioned by the council examined the waste in the communal bins trial. The study found that 42% of the waste in the bins was recyclable (under the current, quite limited recycling scheme available) and a further 21% was food based waste. This was in an areas where weekly kerbside recycling was already in operation.
So we know that 63% of the waste in the bins could be dealt with in alternative ways. We are told a new waste strategy is being developed to bolster our weak recycling levels. We have expanded recycling facilities coming online shortly that will be able to process a wider range of materials than ever before. So why rush the bins in before all this and risk taxpayer money on increasing landfill charges as recyclables are chucked out?
I also feel that the administration have not been sensitive in locating these bins. I have had correspondence from some residents extremely distressed by the thought of having smelly, noisy bins outside their homes possibly blocking their natural light. We have many streets in beautiful conservation areas that house a low density population which are clearly opposed to having these bins. The council’s conservation policy and local plan both clearly put a duty on the council to ‘preserve or enhance the character or appearance’ of our conservation areas and so we should allow opt-outs for the sake of our most beautiful streets and when residents clearly won’t support the scheme.
In summary, we have a proposal that is based on:
I would like to see a new plan which isn’t rushed ahead of the waste strategy — who heard of implementation before the strategy is written? Show me a plan which properly considers the human, conservation and environmental impacts of its proposals and I’ll happily support it.
Cllr Theobald claimed that his plans would have ‘No negative impact on recycling’ and so there would be no additional landfill tax liability. This flies in the face of the council’s own studies.
Yes, we need cleaner streets. But we urgently need to recycle far more than we do today – this was the wrong proposal in the wrong way.
There is an ongoing debate around turnout and declining political engagement. Much of the discussion has been quite limited, such as debating how can we make voting or engagement easier? These, at best, I think are small part of the issues at hand.
In my experience most people care deeply and passionately about at least a few, if not many, issues. They may not vote or write to their elected representatives but they do care and often get frustrated when these issues don't get the attention they feel are deserved.
Yet membership of groups such as Friends of the Earth, National Trust or the Soil Association remain high; much higher than the combined membership of political parties in the UK. These groups can be more repsonsive to member needs and offer a way for like-minded people to cluster. But of course in the end they exert influence for their causes by talking to politicians and their civil servants. Everything is political, it's unavoidable and healthy.
So when people say “I don't do politics” or when we're told “this should be a non-political meeting” I get very frustrated. Such an approach just submerges the explicit political debate that could be had – we are left with either a limp debate or a proxy war through vague terms.
I think what in fact is meant by wanting to avoid “politics” is a distaste for party politics and the point scoring, tubthumping debate that it often creates. I do understand people's distaste for that approach, but it seems very hard to pull a council or Parliament from that culture without firm, direct action from all members. Party political point scoring can be unpleasant to watch, but I believe another reason party politics doesn't engage people is the perception of limited choice.
The majority of elections in the UK are still through the simple first-past-the-post system which means winner takes all. This forces many to vote tactically for parties they don't particularly believe in. This shouldn't have to happen. With a proportional system people can vote for what they care about without fear that it will “let the Tories in” as Labour leaflets often threaten. London today people can vote first preference for Sian Berry and second for Ken to show their belief in Green Party values, but remain safe knowing their vote won't have contributed to letting Tory candidate Boris Johnson in. Similarly, for the London Assembly, which in many ways is more important, a Green vote will never be wasted because of the proportional list system used city-wide.
A proportional voting system supports a greater diversity of parties, which allows more people to feel properly represented and spoken for. Proportionality makes voting more meaningful for many and the results often force parties to work together more constructively than otherwise.
But if people are not voting because they “don't do politics” then proportionality is unlikely to be of much help. As I argued above, I believe everything is political. So if there's an issue someone cares about then usually one can find a policy difference between the parties to draw them into thinking about how to vote.
Big issues of our time — such as climate change, civil liberties and healthcare — require us to engage politically if we are to prevent a multinational-led status-quo continuing. In this context it's so heartening to see two leading campaigners change their paths to re-engage with politics. Al Gore's most recent presentation on the climate crisis shows his desire to re-direct his campaigning work back into party politics and so into the presidential election process unfolding in the US. Gore has seen more of political life than most of us ever will, yet understandbly he distanced himself after 2000. However my sense from his new presentation is that he's going to try and use his influence to pull thousands of people who care about climate change into the political discourse of the presidential elections — and hope they push candidates of all political hues to address the challenge.
Similarly Lawrence Lessig, intellectual property rights campaigner, has recently changed his focus towards reforming how America's political system — specifically Congress — works and is funded. Lessig had been getting frustrated with the lobbying and funding in the political system which was making his campaigning work so hard. At first he considered running for congress himself, but now he's leading a Change Congress project which aims to create change by engaging with candidates and elected members of all political persuasions.
So both Gore and Lessig have become explicitly political in their frustration with lack of progress in their fields, and also because they want to see lasting change. This is a key motivating factor within the Green Party also. Groups such as Friends of the Earth or Animal Aid often are reactive and cannot push through fundamental reforms, but they can help win concessions and improvements to legislation. Only through direct participation in the political process can lasting, fundamental nation-wide change be brought about.
Gore and Lessig are not being party political however, they want their agenda to be adopted regardless of party affiliation, and that makes sense. But what they are doing is encouraging people who care about their issues to engage in the party political process. Their campaigns are helping people find the politics in the issues that matter to them.
Politics is a means to an end, we use it to negotiate agreed ways to improve people's quality of life and nurture the environment (built or natural). It's a necessary, messy process. The fewer people engaged in the negotiations, the less fair and representative the outcomes will be. Only by helping people to find the politics in their lives will we re-invigorate democratic engagement… and more importantly, bring about the change I believe we need to see.
Superb Green Election Broadcast this year… Below is the local elections version with Caroline Lucas, click to view the London-specific version with Sian Berry.
It's election season again but this year we've no elections in Brighton & Hove. So I've doing some travelling to help other Green parties as much as I can. I spent a Saturday in Oxford helping to maintain their strong position on Oxford City Council. There's a wonderful group of dedicated councillors and candidates there and I thoroughly enjoyed my time out campaigning with them.
A week later I was up in London helping the Greens there. Our two London Assembly Members, Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones, have achieved a huge amount by applying pressure on Ken Livingstone over the last four years whilst Ken has needed their votes to pass his budgets. Whilst we don't agree with many of Ken and Labour's policies and approaches, it's hard to imagine a Tory Mayor of London being as willing to work cross-party to build a successful budget.
Sian Berry's Mayoral campaign for the Greens has garnered lots of press coverage, the challenge is to make sure that translates into votes for Green Assembly Members where we can have much more influence than a high mayoral result — we all know it will be Ken or Boris after all.
Having spent time with some of our Assembly candidates I hope we can encourage voters to vote Green on all their ballot papers so these good, hard working Greens can put their energy and ideas to good use.
http://www.sianformayor.org.uk
http://www.votegreenparty.org.uk
If the economic downturn is hitting your wallet here are some easy ways to save you significant sums of money each year whilst also reducing your environmental impact on the world.
Water that sits in plastic bottles for months whilst being shipped around the world is not only a huge source of carbon dioxide emissions, it’s also a waste of money. Bottled water has less checks on its purity and safety than British tap water. If you’re worried about chlorine or impurities in tap water just use a water filter. In bulk filters cost only £2-3 a month, as much as a bottle of fancy mineral water!
Household laundry is one of those great invisible sources of consumption and cost. Your machine may be costing you significant amounts of water and electricity if it isn’t efficient. But what about the stuff you put in it? Cut your cost per wash down to 3p by using EcoBalls and if you must tumble dry then use DryerBalls for faster drying and softer clothes.
You can save loads of money and reduce packaging by buying in bulk. This goes for food or any consumable. For example, in Brighton & Hove, Green Party members run a bulk-buy scheme through Infinity Foods which saves us money whilst also generating donations for the party. Join Now
Do you really, really need your car? Because if you don’t you can save a huge amount of money by going Car-free. Think of how much you spent on the car, then add insurance, tax disc, MOT and servicing every year PLUS petrol of course! For occasional use how about a car club (if there’s one in your area) or you can rent for as little as £30/day. If you really do need a car, try getting a smaller one or a hybrid. These will reduce not only your fuel bill but also your car tax as well as the car’s emissions.
Whether it’s hot water or heating think about how to make best use of it. Don’t leave the hot water running in the kitchen sink whilst wiping surfaces. Wear a sweater or fleece inside so you don’t need to keep the heating up so high. Use draft excluders and other gadgets available at DIY stores to quickly and cheaply keep your home as warm as possible.
These five steps are straightforward but could save your thousands each year whilst also dramatically reducing your impact on the environment. How can you resist?
Woke up this morning confused as to why my alarm hadn’t rung. Then I realised the lights wouldn’t turn on, my phone and laptop weren’t fully charged either. Ah… no power. Stick my head out of the door… no power on the whole floor of the hotel (which is actually more accurately some rooms above a pub).
Hence the day starts with me late for a meeting, I descend to find all the doors at the front of the hotel locked and struggle for five mintutes before finding a way out.
After catching the rump of my first meeting I check my email and news feeds to discover that Amazon S3 – the distributed, reliable, storage service – has been down for over 2 hours. Bit worrying after having started using it in a production setting last week.
I move into the afternoon with trepidation… what next?
Jason Kitcat 