In defence of u-turns

I find myself in the unfamiliar situation of saying something nice about a Tory government. But I must say that among all their policy errors there have been a few occasions when I have found myself applauding them. Let me make it clear I dislike the almost universal refusal to give a direct answer to a straightforward question, the parrot-like repetition of a No-10 taught phrase such as "we're being led by the science" or "the journey was within the legal guidelines", and constant use of statistics which as the admirable More or Less (on Radio 4) regularly demonstrates are anything from inaccurate to misleading.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a generally accepted view that u-turns are a sign of weakness in a government - and to be pilloried. On the contrary, it seems to me refusing to admit you were wrong and changing direction can be pig-headed folly. My wife has to tolerate my navigation when we drive anywhere. Not infrequently I direct her the wrong way. Were we to persist we'd either take an awfully long route or completely fail to reach our destination. Sometimes u-turns are the best policy.

Of course taking the wrong road in the first place was unwise. Yet it takes humility and courage, especially if you're a political leader under public scrutiny, to admit that you were mistaken. And I don't think I've ever heard a government representative issuing an unqualified apology. Matt Hancock refused to apologise on Thursday morning for accusing premiership footballers such as Marcus Rashford for failing to do their bit in the pandemic. He had the gall to attribute some of that young man's achievement to his original comments, and seemed to confuse him with the star of the Harry Potter films. Even Boris Johnson spoiled his u-turn in reponse to Marcus Rashford's impassioned plea for the continuation of lunch vouchers for free-school-meal children by declaring at the Tuesday briefing that he'd 'only become aware' of Marcus Rashford's campaign that day. Presumably he doesn't watch even the BBC News, as it was a major item the day before. But credit where credit's due. Someone in government made the decision to reverse the previous mean policy of stopping it when "term time" finished. Presumably they were moved more by political than compassionate considerations - consider the adverse publicity in the media of starving children on the streets. But at least the right thing was done in the end.

Then there was the schools' affair. At first Mr Williamson thought it would be a good idea to send lots of children back to school. When headteachers pointed out that you can't conjure extra space out of nowhere and parents refused to send their children into potential, perhaps imagined, risk, he scratched his head and changed his mind. So the media-maligned teachers, having worked their socks off to provide distance learning to the pupils, many of them at the same time as providing the children of key workers in-school teaching, now face the job of teaching Reception, Years 1 and 6. Reluctantly it seems the minister has listened to the professionals, and suddenly policy changed. And vague - definitely vague - plans for September - definitely September - have been announced. Well, so far, so good. As instructed, we watch this space.

The "reforms" of the amateur Ms Truss within her justice brief have largely been rolled back to the relief of lawyers and the probation service, including the abandonment of her privatisation of probation.

Of course the biggest change of direction was announced by the young Chancellor of the Exchequer when he became, by force of circumstances, an adherent of corbynomics in a manner trashed months earlier by his boss. However in hindsight we'll probably agree that his decisive action will have saved the economy from total catastrophe. Taking advantage of currently rock-bottom interest rates, he borrowed billions of pounds in order to pay for locked-down workers on furlough. And so in company with other countries we find our economy with a debt larger than the GDP. Of all government ministers Rishi Sunak is the most impressive, not least as a communicator.

The Track and Trace app abandonment illustrates vividly the Prime Minister's pig-headed determination to "beat the world". The Government seems intent on making its own mistakes rather than learning from other countries' experience: late lock-down, inadequate stocks of PPE, abandoned testing, trying to create our own app. Of course it would be best not to go in the wrong direction in the first place, but turning round is better than pursuing that road. And we must acknowledge that no government would get everything tight.

The silencing of the Church

I was somewhat appalled to read this: "Our church buildings must now be closed not only for public worship, but for private prayer as well and this includes the priest or lay person offering prayer in church on their own. A notice explaining this should be put on the church door (please find template attached). We must take a lead in showing our communities how we must behave in order to slow down the spread of the Coronavirus." Who said this? The Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England. Apparently it is giving a lead to the rest of society. 

As you may know, for many years I was a priest (technically I still am), and I looked after three churches where prayers had been offered daily for centuries or millennia. Now "Following the Prime Minister’s announcement last night, it is imperative that for the health of the nation and in order for the National Health Service itself to manage the increase in those requiring medical help, the Church of England strictly observes the new guidelines on staying at home and only making journeys that are absolutely necessary, such as shopping for essential items and to take daily exercise." Apparently without demur the Church has agreed that this previous necessary duty of the priest to offer prayers for his parish in the parish church is no longer essential. 

I appreciate that she or he may pray equally from her or his home, and that God does not dwell in buildings. But even so I would have hoped that the Church powers-that-be would have argued to the Government that, if only as a symbol of the essential importance of public prayer at such a time as this, the minimum of a priest praying daily for their community and nation in the central building of that community should continue.  (Maybe they did. If so, it would have shown clergy respect to have said so.)

We may mostly be confined to our homes, but the sign of the vicar or priest still making their way to the church building to pray for the parish and the world every day would be a powerful sign. "Ah, there goes the vicar to pray for us all. Thank Goodness." It is a sign of committed love and care. People notice.   

In my view it's an absolutely necessary journey. I trust that those who continue to make it aren't disciplined by the Church or fined by the State. 

We live in strange times indeed. This week we'll live an one-party state with no checks and balances, answerable to no one. What's more, as my wife and I discovered when we received texts from UK_Gov telling what we "must" and must not do, it's a one-party state which knows all our private telephone numbers. Worryingly, even the Church, which has in the past spoken truth to power, seems to be silently compliant. Perhaps it will in time find its voice. Meanwhile I like the majority of us hope and trust that the Government, which is facing an unprecedented global crisis and has expert advisers - expertise is no longer despised -, is acting in the interests of the common good. And like a good chap stay at home, and muse.

An interesting after-note
A retired judge has pointed out to me that the complete sealing of churches is not the law, simply ecclesiastical guidance. The relevant piece of legislation is this: 
Statutory Instruments
2020 No. 350
Public Health, England
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Made
at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Laid before Parliament
at 2.30 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Coming into force
at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020

Further restrictions and closures during the emergency period
5.
(6) A place of worship may be used—
(a)for funerals,
(b)to broadcast an act of worship, whether over the internet or as part of a radio or television broadcast, or
(c)to provide essential voluntary services or urgent public support services (including the provision of food banks or other support for the homeless or vulnerable people, blood donation sessions or support in an emergency).

For whom the bells toll

Courcieux (Wikipedia fr)

I’m really annoyed at Carillion. I don’t know where they got their name from, but it’s very close to the sound I first heard camping with our family in the pretty village of Courcieux in the Vosges Mountains. From the campsite we could hear the “carillon” of bells from St Mary of the Assumption’s church, playing a hymn. That was a great holiday.

However, my annoyance can be as nothing to the desperation of those tens of thousands affected by the collapse of Carillion, the second biggest construction and services company in the country – not only those employed directly but also those working for its subcontractors. Small and medium-sized companies face bankruptcy. Workers are likely to lose jobs and pensions, facing insecurity for themselves and their families. Meanwhile the bosses of Carillion, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall as far back as 2016, tried to ring-fence their bonuses and their pay, so that despite the collapse of the huge firm they ran they would continue to receive their 6-figure salaries for another nine months. Carillion bosses rewards (The Week)

And it appears that the function of the company (and others like it) was merely to tender for government contracts, at the lowest possible price to undercut other bidders, and then to subcontract the work to smaller companies which they squeezed in one way or another such as delaying payments. On the way they bought up potential competition such as the old family construction firms, McAlpines and Laings, thus reducing the field of those available for tendering. So what in effect did they do? To my amateur eye it seems they acted as middle men between public authorities and private contractors, a role once carried out in-house by central and local government – and of course they creamed off profits for the directors, management and shareholders. A prodigal waste of public money.

Photo: The Week

I watched Prime Minister’s Questions today, hoping to see some depth of sympathy at the impending flood of human misery which the Carillion collapse is about to unleash and some real anger at malpractice that led to it. But not at all! I appreciate that the government did not “manage” Carillion, as Mrs May pointed out, but their due diligence must be up for question. But what I saw as she talked about it was precious little genuine concern from the front bench, just nods – but of course they are not about to lose their livelihoods. And there was no recognition that the Carillion affair is a stress-test for the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and it has revealed its fatal flaw. Private profit is no partner for public works.

It’s to be hoped that this Carillion carillon is tolling the death knell of the whole ill-conceived PFI project, and ringing in a new dawn for the tens of thousands of our neighbours whose future is now so uncertain.

A nightmare versus a dream

The fact that the Conservatives won't oppose Zac Goldsmith in the by-election for Richmond Park says it all. What more eloquent testimony could there be for their lack of conviction that "this is the right thing for the country", as Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, has adopted as his mantra? If it is, then make the case so persuasively that the residents of Harmondsworth, Harlington, Sipson, Longford, and Richmond vote for you. See how those directly affected by the environmental pollution vote. They might agree.

Photo : Premier org.uk

The project will apparently generate employment for thousands and billions of pounds of national wealth. What's not apparent is why this proposal would generate more than any others - except perhaps in demolishing 950 homes and resettling their occupants, presumably in places not of their choosing, and bulldozing an ancient church and village green. As too often with current governmental decisions, the public rationale is financial and not human. Value for money is elevated above quality of life. There is the implicit accusation of selfish nimbyism. "Take a hit for the rest of us" has been the political philosophy of the past couple of administrations, addressed to the most vulnerable within society - the easiest to target.

However, it's all very well to be negative. What better solution is there? The London airport commission, we are told, thoroughly examined the alternatives and ruled in favour of a third Heathrow runway. Clearly I've not read the report, but I strongly suspect that its overriding criteria were economic. Reluctant though I am to admit any merits in one of Boris Johnson's madcap dreams, I do in fact think that his Thames Estuary island scheme was the most visionary. A brand new hub airport with approaches over the sea and 21st-century infrastructure into London would of course cost more than building an extra runway, but as the Transport Secretary has been at pains to affirm it would be provided by private finance. And the human cost would be far less. Maybe it would impinge on the good burgers of Essex and Kent, were the flight paths badly delineated. Yet one could envisage an eventual reduction in the impact of Heathrow as it ceased to be the hub airport for London, the UK and the world.

I recall the days when there were soundings for a new London airport in rural Buckinghamshire (for example at Wing). Fortunately those were binned. Hopefully Heathrow's third runway will go the same way, and Boris Island will rise from the waves. Now that would be a small legacy to offset the disaster of Brexit.

Coming home to roost

If, as a habit, you denigrate a particular caste, or class, or profession, especially if you are a government, you ought not to be surprised when that profession, or class, or caste deserts you.

So if you tell people who are unable to find paid employment, such as the disabled, that they are shirkers, not workers, don't be too surprised that they are less than impressed.

Last week, Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief inspector of Ofsted, told us that in a year more teachers were going abroad than are being trained as graduates. There is such a "brain drain" in the profession that he was urging politicians to impose "golden handcuffs" on newly trained teachers to prevent them leaving for more lucrative positions in the burgeoning industry of private (public) school offshoots abroad. Of course the very concept of handcuffs at the bottom end of the employment ladder is indicative of the regard in which teachers are held. They would be less golden handcuffs than iron shackles - the gold lies abroad. I suspect most teachers would not mind their profession being regarded as serving their pupils, but handcuffs are more redolent of slavery or crime.

Photo: Association of Teachers & Lecturers

I doubt that it is so much a matter of pay levels that lures our highly trained, able young teachers overseas, but the constant low regard in which they are transparently held by our government. The curriculum is so closely prescribed that there is no room for creativity in the classroom. There is such a lack of trust that inspections focus in on the extensive record-keeping which consumes so much of teachers' time and energies. The low regard is of course reflected in pay. There are other countries such as Germany and Holland where pay reflects higher regard. An informative article in the Guardian shows how far down the comparative table the UK comes. The first and major step the government should take to stem the flow of teachers abroad would be to stop denigrating (or "dissing") the profession and to begin showing appreciation for it (or "bigging it up").

Incidentally, I see that Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State, is considering importing someone from America to replace Sir Michael when he retires. A fairly eloquent indication of her low regard for our home-grown educational talent.

Talking of importing from abroad, today's news announced that 69% of NHS trusts are actively trying to recruit staff from overseas. 23,443 nurses' and 6,207 doctors' posts are vacant (BBC News) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's true, apparently, that the NHS is employing more staff than ever, but unfortunately the demand is bigger than ever. However if you treat highly trained and intelligent men and women as obdurate bolshies, and demand they do more and more with less and less resources, you have fundamentally undermined their respect and their working conditions. No wonder so many leave the service or find employment where they are more highly valued, better resourced and better remunerated. I know one senior doctor who has crossed the border for that very reason.

Photo: British Medical Association

There are two pernicious effects of this shortage. One is the inevitable resort to agency staffing to plug the gaps - which is of course more expensive than in-house staffing as well as less effective since it militates against creating teams who work together. The second, which is sometimes linked to the first, is the effect of denuding needy nations of medical expertise, of which, bluntly, their need is far greater than ours. Salaries here will always be attractive to those in developing countries. And so we have the grotesque spectacle of our government excluding asylum seekers while at the same time encouraging by their policies an exodus of essential skills from impoverished nations. In my view it fails the test of morality.

It was the good book, I seem to remember, that said, "You reap what you sow." Well, we've sown lack of respect for teachers and many seem to want to find more rewarding environments. We've sown antagonism and mistrust for the medical profession and many look for where their expertise is truly appreciated - and we are all the losers. Let's have less rubbishing, and more honouring, of the women and men on whom our essential services rely. Try it and you'll be surprised at how things change.

The wedge's end

Today I had the last appointment of the year with a nice nurse at our GP practice - and now I can hear! I've spent the festive season in a cloud of unhearing because of wax in my right ear. It's been a good experience, in a way, in increasing my empathy with the many who are "hard of hearing". It's extraordinary how stereophonic hearing enables one to pick out conversation against background chatter. It was hard for our guests, however, as Jane tells me my speech was more garbled than normal! (Correction: it was affected.)

So I'm very grateful to Holly and my practice who still provide this service. It's not complicated of course. Just a matter of lubricating the lughole with olive oil for a week and then a visit to the professional to flush it out in five minutes. All free on the NHS. Apparently, however, in many places this simple procedure is not funded anymore. I'm told that to get your ears syringed in Oxford would cost you £70-80 - unless of course you go to A&E and have three-month wait.... And what about that other common condition, varicose veins? Oh no, you can't get them dealt with on the NHS anymore. Wait until they're open and weeping, and then we'll do them. Otherwise go private and pay £1000.

So much for the £ billions for the NHS the government trumpets so loudly! (By the way, have you noticed that their stock response to any awkward question is not to answer it but to spout some large monetary figure which is meant to impress us? And naturally it sounds impressive to us ordinary tax-paying mortals, not being among the 1,826 billionaires in the world [i.e. with wealth of over $1000 million].)

So much for the founding principle of giving treatment free at the point of use! Yes, I know it's already been eroded at the edges, with prescription charges, dental charges, road accident charges and so on. And we already see the negative effects, with people self-medicating and neglecting their dental care until it's too late. But it is clear that, whether by intention or not, the effect of government policies is to shrink further free NHS treatment.

Which leaves one perplexing question to answer. What is happening to the £ billions allegedly being poured into our National Health Service? Is it being spent on hugely expensive experimental operations, or drug regimes with hugely costly pharmaceuticals? Or on paying the interest on the legacy of foolish public/private partnership initiatives? Or on administrators called in to sort out yet more doctrinaire reorganisation? Or prodigally buying in agency staff because we don't pay those we have the wage they deserve? Or is it simply because cantankerous old crocks like me are surviving too long and costing too much?

Thank you from the choir

One encouraging piece of news on Christmas Eve concerned the number one selling song in the Christmas charts. Here's what two of the Greenwich and Lewisham NHS choir had to say about the news that they had topped the charts; they're a physio and a doctor: Thank you from the choir. I think they're right, that their popularity reflected how much the NHS and NHS staff are appreciated and loved. The NHS is one of the best things about this country.

The NHS Choir sings "A Bridge over you"

And here's the song itself - which even cantankerous old crocks can enjoy: The NHS Choir sings "A Bridge over you".  The choir's aim was to support the hard work done by doctors, nurses, midwives and many others in the NHS, with proceeds set to be donated to a selection of charities including Carers UK and mental health charity Mind. 

At the end of 2015, I'm going to say a huge thank you to everyone in the NHS. I know you're in it for the last of those three initials - and you ought to know that 99.9% of us appreciate the long hours you work and the awesome skill and care you show us. 

Finally, looking forward to 2016, I hope and trust that the wedge will not be pushed in any further, and that the government will give you the recognition and reward you totally deserve. Happy New Year.

Family-friendly government

If you choose to stay at home to bring up your children or care for your aged parents or an ailing spouse, things don't look too good for you, after yesterday's Queen's Speech. They were already looking grim for you, in fact, as a result of the government's child care plans.

Should you choose to do anything as old-fashioned and quaint as to keep your children at home until statutory school-age or even forego employment so that you are there when the kids come home from school or available when they are ill, it will affect your state pension - for the worse. How come? Hitherto, when you were a stay-at-home mum up until your children finished at school (or aged 20 if they were still in education), you were counted in on your husband's national insurance contributions (in effect his salary counted as both his and yours, which of course is what it was). That meant that the years you were busily employed caring for your children counted towards your state pension. This could be worth up to £66 per week, plus pension for years when you had been in employment up to a maximum of £110 per week. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/may/07/pensions-bill-flat-rate-changes-married-couples)

The new scheme will discriminate against those who stay at home to care for their children, as the state pension will be based solely on your national insurance contributions from employment. It's yet to be announced what the minimum number of years' contributions will entitle you to any state pension (between seven and ten?). If it was seven, you'd get £28.77 pension a week. Less than that, you'd get nothing. To me this sounds as though the Government, for all its fine words, sets no value on mums or dads staying at home for the sake of their children. Certainly the usual pattern of family life has changed since the 1940s, but the jury is still out on the benefits or otherwise of that change for children. Incidentally I heard this proposal first mooted, leaked, poisonously on the BBC as a measure to prevent immigrants cashing in on our welfare system - no contributions: no pension.

This morning I heard Laura Perrins, barrister and stay-at-home mum, talking on Woman's Hour about the Government's discrimination against people like her. She hit the headlines in March taking the Deputy Prime Minister to task over the double injury inflicted on those in her situation by the new child benefit and childcare policies. As a barrister married to another barrister, she took a big cut in income to stay at home. Since her husband earns over £50,000, they are now no longer entitled to child benefit (Fair enough, they thought; times are tough), even though couples who are both out at work earning up to something over £90,000 are entitled to child benefit. To add insult to injury, the Budget introduced a provision for up to 15 hours' free childcare - but only where both parents are employed.

To quote Laura in her exchange with the oleagenous Nick Clegg:

"Well, Mr Clegg, child benefit was a fair way of recognising everybody's legitimate choice either to work outside the home or to work inside the home. You've essentially abolished that for families like me and replaced it with this, which applies only to mums who want to go out to work.

"I've absolutely no problem with mums who want to do that – there are plenty of my neighbours who do that and I support them fully. But they also recognise that I do a difficult job at home, and by taking away our child benefit and not replacing it with anything you are clearly discriminating against us.

"And then, secondly, in relation to the 15 hours of free childcare or the free early-years education, which I knew you would say ... that doesn't just help stay-at-home mums, that is as you know a universal education provision that is for the children, not for the parents. That's like saying free primary education helps mums, or free secondary helps stay-at-home mums

"There is absolutely no provision within the tax system to help families like myself, and our family is no doubt a net contributor to the Exchequer.

"I just feel that this provision is to bump up the GDP numbers, because if I was looking after someone else's children that would count as a GDP number, which is all that I think the Treasury care about. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing." (Stay-at-home mother, Laura Perrins, talks to Nick Clegg)

I seem to remember Mr Cameron trumpeting his intention to lead "the most family-friendly government Britain has ever had". Well, it seems to promote the model of family of its leaders, where both parents go out to work and "delegate the care of their children to paid strangers" (Milli Hill, Letter to Nick Clegg), and to penalise the alternative. So much for the espousal of "choice" that we hear so much about. Choice - but it will cost you dearly. Of course it won't cost our PM or his deputy or his cabinet for whom state pensions and childcare costs are irrelevancies.

"Mea culpa?"

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has written a letter to The Sunday Telegraph today. In it he says, "Our recovery - already facing powerful headwinds from high oil prices and the debt burden left behind by the boom years - is being killed off by the crisis on our doorstep." The response from Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, was predictable: "It's deeply complacent and out of touch for George Osborne to blame Europe for a double-dip recession made in Downing Street. He will fool nobody with these increasingly desperate excuses."


Déjà entendu? Don't you remember the Labour Government saying our economic woes were all the fault of the American sub-prime market and the bankers? It's really not our fault, they said. Of course the Tory Opposition repeatedly asserted that the deficit was actually the result of the government's irresponsible stewarding of public finances. Of course it was their fault, they told us.


Life's not that simple. It's not black and white. No wonder so many people feel like Mercutio, dying because of the ancient feud between the Montagues and Capulets - "a plague o' both your houses"! If the consequences weren't so serious for the people in the middle, we might write it off as "Punch and Judy politics". However there are casualties - from the young unemployed with little prospect of finding a job, to the genuine disabled facing cuts in their support. And of course there's the cost of people's faith (and interest) in politics.


This coming week our political leaders will be in the spotlight in front of Lord Justice Leveson. I don't suppose the modus operandi of their politics will be focused on. Perhaps Her Majesty might have a word, when she has a chance after her strenuous week. She might remind them of the New Testament reading from her St Paul's service on Tuesday which was read by the Prime Minister: "Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." Did she choose it deliberately? I wonder.

The disabled to get their Pips squeezed

from Uffington Post

I receive Disability Living Allowance, free of tax and not means-tested, which consists of two components: a) mobility, and b) personal care. At the moment I receive the maximum (of 3) bands for mobility, as I can't walk unaided or drive. That allowance is all used by Motability from whom we lease our car, which we have in order to carry my wheelchair, rollator, and all the clobber associated with my PLS. In due course, when I can no longer manage the passenger seat, it will go towards a roll-on-roll-off version. I have only the middle band of the personal care component as I can still feed myself, wash and toilet myself (given some preparatory help from Jane. Actually I can't pull up and fasten my trousers once they're down!).  The DLA is a great help, as it compensates for a number of extra expenses incurred by my disabled state.

I was advised to apply for it by my physio when my MND really made itself felt. The form is not excessively complex, but asks quite specific questions. It relies on self-assessment and therefore honesty (although I seem to remember having to give details of my health professionals such as doctors, with permission for the Department of Work and Pensions to contact them for verification).

The Government has plans to replace this benign compensation for disability with a new idea, PIPs, Personal Independence Payments, with the aim of cutting the cost (approx. £12 billion and rising) by up to £2.24 billion. It will mean reassessing 2 million claimants with the aim (or hope) of pruning out 500,000. Iain Duncan-Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is the man entrusted with handling this sensitive issue. The PM must hope he'll present it with more skill then the Budget fiasco. 

His first attempt, to the Torygraph, as reported in the Huffington Post, is a curate's egg.

"Duncan Smith told the Daily Telegraph: 'We are creating a new benefit, because the last benefit grew by something like 30% in the past few years. It's been rising well ahead of any other gauge you might make about illness, sickness, disability or for that matter, general trends in society.

"'A lot of that is down to the way the benefit was structured so that it was very loosely defined. Second thing was that in the assessment, lots of people weren't actually seen. Third problem was lifetime awards. Something like 70% had lifetime awards, (which) meant that once they got it you never looked at them again. They were just allowed to fester.'

"Duncan Smith defended the reforms which could see people without limbs, including ex-servicemen and women, no longer entitled to disability benefits as their everyday mobility is not undermined by their prosthetic limbs.

"He told the Daily Telegraph: 'It's not like incapacity benefit, it's not a statement of sickness. It is a gauge of your capability. In other words, "Do you need care, do you need support to get around?". Those are the two things that are measured. Not, "You have lost a limb".'

"Ministers are consulting on the new eligibility criteria for the disability benefit system which will be announced in the autumn."

Much of that seems to me reasonable. It's reasonable to want to keep a check on the validity of the initial claims; it's reasonable to keep a weather-eye on their continuing validity. It's true that medical technology can restore people to independent living and it's reasonable that the cost of that technology should be offset by savings on DLA. But there will be additional costs in the task of 2 million reassessments (carried out by GPs or more probably specially employed assessors). And to my recollection the benefit was not "very loosely defined"; in fact the questions were very specific, such as how far could I walk unaided, and could I dress myself, could I cook for myself, shower unaided etc. What I'm dubious about is whether my GP or consultant were ever asked to confirm my answers. (It may be that MND is recognised as a severely disabling condition.) 

I am, every year, at the same time as being informed about the monthly rate, told that I must report any change which might affect my award. It wouldn't be very hard for the DWP to contact my GP to check, if they wanted to. It would probably be cheaper to do that across the board than to set up an entirely new system with a large number of new assessors. 

Bishop: "I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones";
Curate: "Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"
"True Humility" by George du Maurier, originally published in Punch, 1895.

I suppose the most rotten part of the curate's egg is the sentence, "They were just allowed to fester." I'm sorry, I'm sure, that the minister regards allowances such as mine as a running sore, a festering wound in the body politic. I can assure him that most disabled people would prefer not to be a burden on the state; in fact they'd prefer to be sound in wind and limb. But it's quite nice to know we're not forgotten and that someone once cared enough to set up a system which, even if it can't erase, can at least ease the experience of disability. 

I sincerely hope that the new PIPs have the same humanity at their heart. (I tried to find pictures of IDS with disabled people, in vain - I wonder why - with the exception of the one above; at least I'm assuming the seated man is disabled - as it's from the Royal British Legion's website. However I did find this one from My Marilyn blogspot, which satirizes my hope....) Will its scepticism proves unfounded? Will the Secretary of State turn out to have the heart of Florence Nightingale?

Long-term?

Yesterday afternoon we had another MND Association meeting, this time going round the gardens at Waterperry House just outside Oxford. For all their new-agey philosophy they know their onions and their herbaceous borders. Here's our friend Jan beside the latter. It was only a year ago that we were going round Waddesdon Manor gardens with Jan and John, her husband. He was facing the most aggressive MND, and in fact died in November last year. He had great courage and faith. He's one of the people to whom I made my dedication for I Choose Everything. His daughter, Joanne, is doing the Great North Run in his memory in September, in aid of the MNDA of course. You can sponsor her on www.justgiving.com/forpops

We came across this rather magnificent ornamental thistle just round the corner. I guess it's seven or eight feet high. Jan, being taller than Jane, kindly took this picture for me with the bee at work on it. Then we retired to the tea shop where we met up with all the others who'd been wandering round the gardens themselves. Had a good piece of coffee-cake with my tea - though not up to Cornerstone on quality and more expensive!

Second from the left is Barbara, who went to Parliament with us about the National Strategy. In fact all four of us were there again and compared notes. Jane and Barbara were disappointed at the low turn-out of MPs, but Jane and I were a bit more sanguine that it might have done some good. However I've since discovered they were probably nearer the mark than us. On the right is Lesley Ogden, the very efficient and hard-working branch secretary, who is typical of the really nice (sorry, teacher!) helpers and visitors.

The official government response to asking for a National Strategy for MND appears to be to refer to the National Service Framework for Long-term conditions. I looked it up on the Department of Health's website, wondering what I'd find. It has an introduction by the Secretary of State, no less - John Reid!! Remember him? Yes, it's from 10th March 2005. What's it about? "This NSF sets 11 quality requirements to transform the way health and social care services support people with long-term neurological conditions to live as independently as possible. Although the NSF focuses on people with long-term neurological conditions, much of the guidance it offers can apply to anyone living with a long-term condition." And it made a commitment for implementation in 10 years. Now the new government is committed to its implementation 'over 10 years', I gather. That sounds like 5 years slippage. The point of the MND National Strategy was to make sure that GPs and care professionals are clued up on diagnosis and care for a disease which on average takes 14 months to diagnose and from diagnosis to death averages 17 months. 'Long-term neurological condition'? Come on - most MND patients die within a year and a half of diagnosis! Another 10 years sorting things out is cold comfort for them. Usually it's a rapid disease. I'm not typical. Neither is Stephen Hawkin. We actually do need a strategy. I do hope someone in government is reading and thinking about it. Long-term condition? Hardly ever. Long-term problem? Yes. And immediate challenge.

Season of Nutts and mellow fruitfulness

So Professor David Nutt has been sacked as the government's chief adviser on drugs, because he criticised the home secretary and the prime minister for not following his advice that cannabis should be classified as the lowest category C drug. I don't have much sympathy for him. Not that I'm disputing the evidence of the comparative harm of different drugs, though it's a bit naïve to compare drugs which have been legally available for centuries such as alcohol and tobacco with those that are illegal (and have a vocal lobby trying to make them legal). What the professor should be able to grasp is that advisers advise but politicians decide. And, as any afficionado of West Wing will appreciate, political decisions are seldom pure and never simple. He is quoted as saying: 'I’m not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I think most scientists will see this as a further example of the Luddite attitude of this government, and possible future governments, towards science.'
As I recall, at the time of the classification of cannabis as category B by Alan Johnson's unfortunate predecessor, there was no secrecy about the advisory committee's contrary recommendation: in other words, his view was already well and truly in the public domain. And as Sir David King, the former government chief scientific adviser, rightly pointed out, it's not the role of an adviser in the pay of the government to criticise ministers - any more than civil servants may.

What struck me about Prof Nutt's comments is the dangerous subtext - that science should be all-powerful. If scientists say so, it must be true. If scientists say, 'Jump!' then we all have to jump. For one thing, scientists aren't always right, and the advice they give is not always ethical. They, like the rest of us, work within their own moral framework. No one, not even scientists, works without presuppositions. The idea that science is morally neutral is a fallacy, because it's carried out by human beings. And neither is 'Science' a moral absolute. That's because science is always provisional. The boundaries of our knowledge are continually expanding and yet always finite. Don't get me wrong! Scientific study is a wonderful thing. Personally I regard the urge to explore, research and understand as God-given, even as a form of worship - and if you don't think in those terms I regard them as the most human of activities. Like everyone with 'terminal' conditions, I hope that medical research will one day crack the code of MND and discover a cure. But actually that's not what life's all about, although it would be easy to think so. Life's about how we live with each other and how we care for each other - and that's not reducible to a statistical analysis or a formula. It's far more complex than that.

I'm sitting in the conservatory at the moment. I was inspired by Virginia Woolf to turn my comfortable chair round, so that I now look out at the back garden rather than through the house. I can see the results of Jane and Bryan's recent hard work. Autumn clearance is always tough because you have to be quite ruthless with the plants which haven't QUITE finished flowering, to make room for the spring plants. Actually we've left a few for the surprisingly late butterflies that have been hanging around. We're hoping there's enough warmth in the ground still to germinate the grass seed sown where the undergrowth was cleared away. I learned this week a new meaning of 'mellow'. Colin tells me that it's what his father used to call apples which aren't crisp - and he ought to know being from one of the local farming families. Anyway, mellow apples suit me, because they're easier now for me to chew and swallow than those horrible Granny Greens. I doubt whether that was what Keats had in mind when he talked about 'mellow fruitfulness' - but you never know.