DUBAI ON DEANSGATE - Report warns of property bubble crash in Manchester!

Beetham Tower Deansgate

A report published in November 2016, by the ‘Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change’ (CRESC), based at the University of Manchester, outlines Manchester’s transformation over 25-years and shows how councillors and officers working with property developers, transformed Manchester City and Salford.

The report says that what has been built, is a parallel new town in Manchester City, of office blocks and adjacent one and two bedroom flats, occupied by a 25 to 34-year-old in-migrant workforce, that lives, works and plays, within the city centre. Of this in-migrant workforce, 34% were born outside the UK and Ireland and 24% from outside Europe. The report says that many work in junior white-collar occupations, linked to local government, health, education, or the private sector. Alternatively, they work in retail, restaurants, or hotels, which employ 25% of the workforce. The report asserts that this has led to ‘exclusive’ growth and inequalities – “Dubai on Deansgate”, that has not spilled over into other areas of Greater Manchester.

Other areas within Greater Manchester, are described has being economically ‘dire’ and characterised by low-wages and precarious employment. These areas, the report says, have never fully recovered from the ‘de-industrialisation’ of the 1980’s. The report states:

“The plight of Bolton, Rochdale, Stockport, and Tameside, is dire, because from 2008-14 they have lost both private and public sector jobs and, in a period of austerity cuts in public expenditure, some boroughs are now losing private sector jobs faster than they are losing public sector jobs.”

Seemingly, only Manchester City and Trafford have shown significant increases in job numbers, while four of the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester saw net job losses. In addition, 21% of Greater Manchester’s neighbourhoods are in the top 10% most deprived in England and Manchester City, has 41% of Greater Manchester’s neighbourhoods in this category.

The report points out that central Manchester is not like central London, which relies on radial commuting by public transport from outer boroughs – “Long distance commuting is discouraged because Manchester city region combines relatively cheap central flats and inner residential suburbs with low wages and high fares… Most commuting into Manchester City is by car.”

The people who live within Greater Manchester are heavily dependent on public sector jobs. The public sector accounted for more than half of the 46,000 extra jobs created in ten Greater Manchester boroughs between 1998-2008. Manufacturing employs less than 4% of the Manchester City workforce but still accounts for 10% of employment in northern boroughs. Out of total Greater Manchester employment of 1,197k, 447k or 37.3%, are employed in “mundane”, activities. Manchester’s public and state-supported sector, now employs more than 35% of the workforce in a city heavily dependent on health and education spending. The report argues that the Greater Manchester private sector economy, has a very limited capacity to generate good jobs which pay high wages.

It has been argued by some social pundits that Manchester’s growing inequality, is a good thing because like London, it is proof that it has managed to create well-paying jobs for at least a minority of its population, whereas, in other areas, they may be more equal, but this is because everyone is poor.

The report rejects this and says that what is needed is not ‘exclusive’ growth, but ‘inclusive’ economic growth, that spills-over into other areas of Greater Manchester and provides people with real opportunities. What is needed, in the view of the authors, is a move away from property development as the accelerator of urban growth, which has only benefitted the city, towards “welfare-critical basic goods and services” for the whole population – “affordable transport, accessible broadband, and social housing – 80,000 people are on the housing waiting lists of the ten GM boroughs – that would take precedence over ostentatious tower blocks.”

The report also says that there ought to be investment in the foundational economy – food distribution and processing, education and health, adult care, pipe and cable utilities and public transport, leading to low-fare public transport, for all Greater Manchester residents. It is also argued that the 185,000 businesses in Greater Manchester should be made to pay decently (the living wage) and to employ and train local workers, as their businesses, draw revenue from Greater Manchester.

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), will lead to the new town in Manchester City, doubling in size from 2015 to 2035. Alongside this, there will be large edge of city housing developments and warehouse parks off the orbital M60. A quarter of housing, is earmarked to be built on green belt sites. The term “social housing”, does not appear anywhere in the GMSF draft.

The authors of this report, argue that the political elite of Greater Manchester, ought to learn lessons from the Brexit vote which revealed an increasingly disgruntled electorate that are asking local, regional, and national politicians, “What have you done for us!” They also warn that Brexit, increases the likelihood of “capital flight, currency depreciation, a rise in interest rates, and a slump in house prices and in construction activity”, which could lead to a property bubble crash in and across Greater Manchester.

Tameside health campaigner condemns "wall of silence" surrounding hospital bed cuts!

We are publishing below an email that was sent by Rod McCord of the 'Tameside Hospital Action Group' (THAG), to Angela Rayner, MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, on 5 December 2016. In his email Mr. McCord refers to the proposed reduction of 246 beds which Tameside Hospital are intending to cut by 2020 - a 55% cut in current bed capacity, that will leave a remaining 203 hospital beds. He points out that there has been little public involvement and consultation in these proposed cut-backs and a "virtual wall of silence surrounding the bed cuts".

In the email, Ms. Rayner, is asked for her comments on the proposed bed cuts and if she could "ascertain from the Trust its precise intentions in respect of the retention of a full, 24-hour A&E unit" and the proposed demolition of the Charlesworth Building, which houses the maternity suites. We understand - at the time of writing - that Ms. Rayner has not replied to Mr. McCord about the matters raised in his email.

Despite the seriousness consequences that bed cuts could have for the public in Tameside and Glossop, the silence from the official authorities about this issue has been deafening. It is being claimed that the bed cuts can be compensated for by creation of five multidisciplinary care teams, working within the community. 

Although the UK average is 300 beds per 100,000 population, Tameside Hospital, would be left with 80 beds per 100,000 population. In the Irish Republic it is about 500; in Belgium its is over 650; in France it is over 700; in Germany it is over 800 and even in Romania, there is an average of 600 beds per 100,000 population.

Last November, Sir Richard Leese, the Labour leader of  Manchester City Council, told an audience representing voluntary organisations across Greater Manchester that he wanted to see ward and hospital closures across Great Manchester. He believes that many people who are currently in hospital need not be there and that their needs could be better met in other ways. 

Milton Pena, a retired consultant orthopaedic surgeon, who worked at Tameside Hospital for seventeen-years, told a public meeting held in Stalybridge last September that such a massive reduction in bed capacity would lead t0 a drastic deterioration in quality of care of patients in Tameside and Glossop and that safety, effectiveness, and patient experience, would be significantly effected.

To: "angela.rayner.mp@parliament.uk"  
Sent: Monday, 5 December 2016, 19:01
Subject: Tameside Hospital

Angela Rayner, MP

Ashton-u-Lyne

Dear Ms Rayner,

On behalf of Tameside Hospital Action Group (THAG), I am writing to you as the MP in whose constituency Tameside hospital is situated.

You will be aware that the hospital is currently in the process of becoming an Integrated Care Organisation, plans for which were outlined in a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers released in July 2015. (attached)

THAG welcomes the integration of health and social care and, in principle, supports these developments.  However, we are concerned that the plans include an unconscionable reduction in the number of acute beds at the hospital, slashing their number from 449 to a mere 203, a loss of 246 beds, that is, 55% of current capacity. (See p.14 of attached PwC report)

Although future emphasis will be upon preventative healthcare and care in the community – and, hopefully therefore, fewer hospital admissions – there is a paucity of evidence to support such a severe diminution of bed capacity. 

In the circumstances, THAG is inclined towards the view that this is a cost-driven, rather than evidence-based measure and represents a wildly over-optimistic forecast of the number of beds that can be dispensed with whilst continuing to meet the needs of the local population under the new model of care.  We believe that the hospital should not proceed with bed cuts until the ICO is up-and-running and its efficacy has been fully reviewed with the need for fewer beds convincingly demonstrated.

Additionally, the consequences of such a downgrading of the hospital for it’s A&E department are extremely ominous.  THAG was unable to elicit assurances from the Trust’s chief executive, Karen James, at its recent AGM that a full A&E unit would continue to operate;  she was only prepared to say that an emergency service would continue to be provided, raising fears that the existing unit would be reduced to no more than 9 – 5 service or an urgent care centre.

Presently, planned implementation of the ICO is quite advanced.  However, public involvement and consultation has been minimal, with a virtual wall of silence surrounding bed cuts and the future of A&E.

We would be grateful, therefore, if you could ascertain from the Trust its precise intentions in respect of the retention of a full, 24-hour A&E unit and we would appreciate your comments on the proposed axeing of 246 beds at the hospital, which includes the demolition of the existing Charlesworth Building.

We very much look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Rod McCord (Tameside Hospital Action Group)

Andy Burnham Says 'I'll be a people's Mayor!'

by Brian Bamford

TODAY at The Albert Halls in Bolton's Victoria Square the Labour candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayor's job told those who gathered to hear his manifesto for 'A safe, inclusive and diverse Greater Manchester' that he would be a 'People's Mayor' and a 'Grass-roots Mayor'. 
Mr. Burnham declared himself in favour of 'Safer Streets' and promised to work with the Chief Constable to start recruiting new police officers that reflect the diversity of Greater Manchester.  He promised to create 'a different relationship between the State and the Voluntary sector'. 
We were told that 'Crime is on the rise' and that 'Deep inequalities remain', and that 'we have seen an increasing amount of young people sleeping on the streets'.
The Labour candidate for Mayor worried about the cost of transport and bus fares, though he never said how often he used a bus, he spoke of housing problems and it was claimed that many young people will never be able to own their own house.  It was said that pensioners were made to feel guilty for claiming state pensions.  That scapegoating was prevalent in what was called the 'blame culture' of British society were everyone knows his or her place and fears the disruption that foreigners may bring:  it was said that one Polish nurse had been abused by people who she was treating in the Bolton community, telling her to 'Get back to Poland!'
Andy asked us 'Why has Mental Health shot up the social agenda?', and suggested that the 'voluntary sector' was 'person sensitive' while the 'Statutory sector' was much less inclined to address a 'personalised approach'. 
He claimed that he had in mind a new apprenticeship system which would draw upon the good things in the traditional apprenticeship and blend it with new concepts:  saying that he had had contact with the union UCATT. 
Regarding care in the community he said that he wanted to recruit the help of the Communication Worker's Union (CWU) to get the post-men to keep an eye on old and frail people in society.  This, he claimed, would reduce the isolation and insecurity people felt.
What was wanted was 'a young-people's cabinet to advise the Mayor on all areas of policy and ensure young peoples' voices are heard'.
Then in keeping with the latest fashion, Mr Burnham stated:  'I am proud that Greater Manchester has such a thriving LGTB community, rivalling London as the LGBT capital.'
Nothing was said about the Labour councillors in Rochdale who last month voted themselves a 34% increase, though one of the Rochdale Labour councillors at the Burnham manifesto meeting quietly told me that he was not going to take the rise, and when asked what the Rochdale Council leader, Richard Farnell, was thinking of by forcing the rise through on a whipped vote he said:  'He's Big Headed and doesn't care about UKIP!'
Nothing was said about the Labour Council leader of Manchester City Council, Richard Lees, who had addressed a meeting of Voluntary Organisations on Devo-Manc at which he said he wanted to see ward and hospital closures across Manchester, including Tameside because he believed that many people are in hospital who ought not to be, and could have their needs better met elsewhere.
Fear of the threat of UKIP was ever present in the workshops.

Are N.H.S. services in Greater Manchester safe with Andy Burnham?

'Doe-eyed' - Andy Burnham

Andy Burnham, who is standing as a candidate in the Greater Manchester mayoral elections, was recently described by one newspaper columnist, as ‘doe-eyed’ and a cross between ‘Paul McCartney’ and a ‘Thunderbird puppet’. Last week, Andy, the Member of Parliament for Leigh, was on the stump in Ashton-under-Lyne, where he was billed to be speaking at a public meeting on ‘Health and Well-being, at Clarendon Sixth Form College.

While the event was free to attend, and was advertised on ‘eventbrite.com’, it was not widely advertised or easy to register and many of the people who were attending the event, told me that they were Labour Party members who had received invitations to attend the meeting. Despite assurances from a Labour functionary, wearing a red tie, that it was indeed a public meeting, a Tameside councillor, told me that it was by invitation only.  

By all accounts, the event turned out to be less a “Policy Development Conference on Health and Well-being” and more an Andy Burnham roadshow. A health professional, who managed to attend the meeting, who is also a Labour Party member, told NV that the event was a ‘missed opportunity’ and a ‘waste of time’. Seemingly, proposals to integrate health and social care in Tameside and across Greater Manchester, “the first properly integrated National Health and Care Service”, which Burnham supports, were presented as a shining light within Greater Manchester.

While the public are told that Andy Burnham is keen to involve the public in developing policies that “will make a real and meaningful difference to people’s lives”, this turned out to be even more bullshit. According to our health professional, the people in charge of the meeting were not interested in talking about the massive bed cuts at Tameside Hospital, low staffing levels, or how tax-payers’ money is being wasted. Neither had they much to say about the fate of the N.H.S. Instead, all the speakers focused on how Andy Burnham’s career as a Labour politician, had been full of dedication to the well-being of the great British public.

Although I think that integrating health and social care could be an excellent idea, the thought of out-of-their-depth, ten-bob councillors, in Greater Manchester, having greater control over N.H.S spending and health care in the region, is something that fills me with abject horror. In 2013, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), said that Labour dominated councils like Manchester, Salford and Tameside, were at risk of becoming the equivalent of ‘one party states’ like North Korea, China or Cuba.

Last month, Sir Richard Leese, the Labour leader of Manchester City Council- a council where almost all the council seats are filled by Labour - speaking about DevoManc, told an audience at the Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisations (G.M.C.V.O) A.G.M, that he wanted to see ward and hospital closures across Greater Manchester, including Tameside. He believes that many people who are currently in hospital, need not be there and that their needs could be better met in other ways. 

However, as part of the ‘Devolution’ agreement, the government have made it a condition that all the ten council’s in Greater Manchester, develop ‘new care models’ between now and 2020, to receive the £450 million, ‘Transformation’ fund monies agreed in the devolution agreement. Mr Leese also believes that it is the role of voluntary organisations, to “fill in the holes”, left by public service cuts.

Already, Tameside Hospital have confirmed that they are planning to close 246 beds at the hospital by 2020 and claim that this can be compensated for by the creation of five local multidisciplinary care teams. Moreover, care services are steadily being privatised - CareUK have recently been given a five-year contract for musculoskeletal services in Tameside. Nationally, some 200 N.H.S care services have also been handed over to the billionaire tax exile, Richard Branson.

Milton Peña, a retired consultant orthopaedic surgeon, who worked at Tameside Hospital for seventeen-years, told a public meeting held in Stalybridge in September:

“Such a massive reduction in bed capacity will lead to a drastic deterioration in quality of care of patients in Tameside and Glossop. Safety, effectiveness and patient experience, will be significantly affected.”

Some people are rightly suspicious about the notion of “integrated care” believing it to be a cover for cuts, deprofessionalization and the downgrading of N.H.S services. They question how private companies can provide a high standard of health and social care while making profits and point out that this is often done, at the expense of cutting staff and working conditions.

Although, Andy Burnham, failed to explain how ‘integration’ will improve health and social care, some sceptic’s in the ‘Tameside Keep our N.H.S Public’ group, believe that Labour in Manchester, have:

“swallowed hook, line and sinker current government ideology that believes publicly funded and provided health and social care services should be severely reduced, leaving a ‘safety net’ for the deserving poor, for whom no alternative is possible.”

As they point out, this would mean most of us paying for services or taking out private health insurance as is the case in America, where failure to pay medical bills, is the main cause of middle-class bankruptcy in the United States.

As a candidate for Mayor, Andy Burnham, should tell the electorate whether he agrees or disagrees with Sir Richard Leese in wanting ward and hospital closures across Greater Manchester and how “integration”, will improve health and social care.