Teachers are threatening to strike over plans to cut £200m from school and college budgets amid claims it will "ration" teenagers' opportunities - reports the Daily Telegraph.
They will ballot for industrial action at sixth-forms where staff face redundancies to plug the funding black hole.
The National Union of Teachers branded the cuts "an absolute disgrace" and said Labour risked leaving many young people on the "scrap heap".
It marks a significant escalation of the row over an eleventh-hour drop in funding for institutions across England, putting courses for as many as 50,000 teenagers under threat.
Last week, head teachers warned they could sue the Government's Learning and Skills Council over the episode.
Meanwhile the European Union continues to enjoy its net £6bn a year (or £115m a week) funding deal, agreed in 2005 before the economic crisis erupted.
The Government is facing the need to make major cuts in public spending to compensate for money spent on supporting banks and the economy, but has so far refused to re-open debate on the scale of cash Britain hands to the EU.
This is despite the fact that, back in November, the accuracy of the EU's accounts was seriously criticised by auditors for the 14th year in a row, with billion of pounds of EU spending once again unaccounted for.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Shocking state of roads costs UK drivers £1m every day
A survey has confirmed what every motorist already suspected - our roads are becoming almost as potholed as the surface of the moon - reports the Daily Telegraph.
British drivers are now paying out an estimated £1 million every day in repairs because of the shocking state of some highways.
Over an eight-year period up to May 2008, six per cent of cars each year suffered axle and suspension damage thanks to bad roads.
With some claims as high as £2,710 and the average repair costing £240, it means drivers are paying out a total of £413 million a year - even if they do manage to claim the costs back on insurance, or from the roads authority concerned.
British drivers are now paying out an estimated £1 million every day in repairs because of the shocking state of some highways.
Over an eight-year period up to May 2008, six per cent of cars each year suffered axle and suspension damage thanks to bad roads.
With some claims as high as £2,710 and the average repair costing £240, it means drivers are paying out a total of £413 million a year - even if they do manage to claim the costs back on insurance, or from the roads authority concerned.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Colleges forced to take 'drastic measures' after £60 million cut
Head teachers are considering drastic measures, such as turning down thermostats and forgoing new text books, because of a "comprehensive mismanagement" of government funds which may lead to tens of thousands of students losing college places.
The Daily Telegraph reports that a surprise £60 million cut in the budget for the education of 16 to 19 year olds in England was announced to schools last week, jeopardising the future of an estimated 35,0000 students.
This came despite a promise in early March that the money, allocated by the by the Government's Learning and Skills Council, was available to take on more students in a drive to encourage teenagers to stay in education.
Many heads recruited additional sixth-formers in response only to later be told the money was not available.
Now they say they will have to resort to cancelling school trips and building repairs among other "desperate" measures in order to make up for the shortfall.
The Daily Telegraph reports that a surprise £60 million cut in the budget for the education of 16 to 19 year olds in England was announced to schools last week, jeopardising the future of an estimated 35,0000 students.
This came despite a promise in early March that the money, allocated by the by the Government's Learning and Skills Council, was available to take on more students in a drive to encourage teenagers to stay in education.
Many heads recruited additional sixth-formers in response only to later be told the money was not available.
Now they say they will have to resort to cancelling school trips and building repairs among other "desperate" measures in order to make up for the shortfall.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Future threat to public services
The Financial Times reports that cuts in public services are on the cards for 2011 as the government plans to boost short term spending.
Alistair Darling has made clear that he will not cut spending now as the economy slows to recession, but will try to bring forward capital spending and "reprioritise" current expenditure on areas that support the economy or protect people from the downturn.
As the £115 million a week net Britain hands to the audit-failing EU falls into neither of these priority categories, when will Mr Darling be heading to Brussels to break the bad news that their huge weekly cheque has been "reprioritised"?
A range of government departments including Work & Pensions, Revenue & Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office already face sharp real-term cuts in their budgets.
Latest spending plans squeezed virtually all government departments to protect health, education and law & order, which themselves received lower rises than in previous years.
However it will be beyond 2010 - after the next general election - when the real pain will be felt.
"What has happened recently will leave a permanent scar on the economy," said Ray Barrell of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
"After the dust has settled, all governments will have to give serious thought to the level of public services that they want."
However not all the pain may be taken by public services. Some of it could well come from tax rises.
In the current economic turmoil, the billions of pounds a year Britain lavishes on the wasteful and fraud-ridden EU is looking less and less sustainable. As public finances tighten, the government needs to act urgently to redirect these huge amounts to more productive purposes.
Alistair Darling has made clear that he will not cut spending now as the economy slows to recession, but will try to bring forward capital spending and "reprioritise" current expenditure on areas that support the economy or protect people from the downturn.
As the £115 million a week net Britain hands to the audit-failing EU falls into neither of these priority categories, when will Mr Darling be heading to Brussels to break the bad news that their huge weekly cheque has been "reprioritised"?
A range of government departments including Work & Pensions, Revenue & Customs, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office already face sharp real-term cuts in their budgets.
Latest spending plans squeezed virtually all government departments to protect health, education and law & order, which themselves received lower rises than in previous years.
However it will be beyond 2010 - after the next general election - when the real pain will be felt.
"What has happened recently will leave a permanent scar on the economy," said Ray Barrell of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
"After the dust has settled, all governments will have to give serious thought to the level of public services that they want."
However not all the pain may be taken by public services. Some of it could well come from tax rises.
In the current economic turmoil, the billions of pounds a year Britain lavishes on the wasteful and fraud-ridden EU is looking less and less sustainable. As public finances tighten, the government needs to act urgently to redirect these huge amounts to more productive purposes.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Kidney cancer drugs too costly for NHS
Four new drugs to treat advanced kidney cancer have been rejected by the government's drugs advisory body as too expensive for use by the NHS, various news sources report today.
Although the drugs were acknowledged to provide "substantial benefits" and were judged to provide "significant gains" in survival, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has refused approval on the grounds that the NHS cannot afford to provide them to patients.
More than 7,000 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer annually in the UK, with around 1,700 of those diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer.
The drugs cost between £20,000 to £35,000 a year per patient, but even at the upper end of this scale the total cost of providing the drugs to all the 1,700 patients for a year - at just under £60m - is a tiny fraction of the £115m every week the government lavishes on the audit-failing EU. Priorities?
The decision to issue draft guidance rejecting Sutent (sunitinib), Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib) and Torisel (temsirolimus) has outraged charities, kidney specialists and campaigners.
Experts have reacted angrily to the decision, saying it left them with little option for treating patients.
Although there are treatments available, none of them "cure" advanced renal cell carcinoma or cancer that has spread from the initial tumour. But they can help extend a patients' life by around five to six months.
Quoted in the Times report, John Wagstaff, an honorary consultant in medical oncology at the South Wales Cancer Institute in Swansea and director of the Wales Cancer Trials Network, said there was “no point” in him accepting referrals for people with advanced kidney cancer because about 75 per cent of them “do not gain any real benefit” from interferon. The only other option, he said, was to make patients comfortable in their last months.
The draft guidelines for England and Wales, which are subject to appeal, recommended people already on the drugs should be able to continue therapy.
In the BBC's report, Pat Hanlon from Kidney Cancer UK said that the drugs provide a 'considerable benefit' and Professor Peter Johnson, from Cancer Research UK, said they had shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments.
It's easy to cast NICE as the villian of the piece, but in trying to get the best out of limited resources they have a very difficult job to do.
In reality, in agreeing to pay an unjustifiable 63% extra to the undeserving EU, it is the government and the MPs who voted to approve that deal who are solely to blame when there's no public money left for life-prolonging drugs to be made available on the NHS.
Although the drugs were acknowledged to provide "substantial benefits" and were judged to provide "significant gains" in survival, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has refused approval on the grounds that the NHS cannot afford to provide them to patients.
More than 7,000 people are diagnosed with kidney cancer annually in the UK, with around 1,700 of those diagnosed with advanced kidney cancer.
The drugs cost between £20,000 to £35,000 a year per patient, but even at the upper end of this scale the total cost of providing the drugs to all the 1,700 patients for a year - at just under £60m - is a tiny fraction of the £115m every week the government lavishes on the audit-failing EU. Priorities?
The decision to issue draft guidance rejecting Sutent (sunitinib), Avastin (bevacizumab), Nexavar (sorafenib) and Torisel (temsirolimus) has outraged charities, kidney specialists and campaigners.
Experts have reacted angrily to the decision, saying it left them with little option for treating patients.
Although there are treatments available, none of them "cure" advanced renal cell carcinoma or cancer that has spread from the initial tumour. But they can help extend a patients' life by around five to six months.
Quoted in the Times report, John Wagstaff, an honorary consultant in medical oncology at the South Wales Cancer Institute in Swansea and director of the Wales Cancer Trials Network, said there was “no point” in him accepting referrals for people with advanced kidney cancer because about 75 per cent of them “do not gain any real benefit” from interferon. The only other option, he said, was to make patients comfortable in their last months.
The draft guidelines for England and Wales, which are subject to appeal, recommended people already on the drugs should be able to continue therapy.
In the BBC's report, Pat Hanlon from Kidney Cancer UK said that the drugs provide a 'considerable benefit' and Professor Peter Johnson, from Cancer Research UK, said they had shown a small but definite improvement in an illness where there are few alternative treatments.
It's easy to cast NICE as the villian of the piece, but in trying to get the best out of limited resources they have a very difficult job to do.
In reality, in agreeing to pay an unjustifiable 63% extra to the undeserving EU, it is the government and the MPs who voted to approve that deal who are solely to blame when there's no public money left for life-prolonging drugs to be made available on the NHS.
Labels:
cancer care,
NHS funding,
sorafenib,
sutent
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Norfolk & Suffolk: Post office closures hit elderly
Post Office bosses and the government came under fire last night as it emerged a third of pensioners in Norfolk and West Suffolk are set to be left without their local branch - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
An estimated 82,200 elderly people in the area will be affected, forcing them to travel further to a post office.
Fifty post office branches are set to shut as part of controversial nationwide cuts to the network, caused by the government's refusal to increase subsidies for loss-making branches.
The government's stance over funding of post offices is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's approval of the European Union budget deal, which increased our payments to the EU by an astonishing 63% to £115m (net) every single week between now and 2013 - putting the £150m annual subsidy for post offices in the shade.
Approval was given despite the EU's accounts not having been given a clean bill of health by auditors for the past thirteen years, and the organisation's terrible repuation for waste and fraud.
Help the Aged yesterday criticised the closure plan and accused the Post Office of ignoring the older population.
Pensioners are a primary customer base for post offices, with thousands collecting pensions from them each week.
Dr Alan Burnett, the charity's senior policy officer, said: “When you have a mobility problem or difficulty getting around, a journey extended by only half a mile is not a simple matter of a little more exercise - it is almost a complete removal of the service.
“Older people in Norfolk and West Suffolk are contacting us to say they feel ignored by the consultation process. It's beginning to seem as if the Post Office is merely paying lip service to government consultation regulations and not really listening to the valuable local information being given to them.
“If older people are not listened to, and their needs are not taken into account, the consequences for many will be extremely serious.”
So far, 970 branches have shut across the country, out of the 2,500 earmarked for closure. Less than 4% have been saved, despite numerous campaigns.
On a national scale, millions of pensioners are struggling with simple day-to-day tasks as a result of the ongoing closures, and Help the Aged claim that 2.3 million people will need to travel at least half a mile further afield to find a replacement post office.
Last night, two of the counties' MPs spoke angrily of the impact the scheme was set to have on their constituents, branding the consultation “farcical”.
Richard Spring, MP for West Suffolk, said: "We always said the post office closures would hit the most vulnerable, most particularly in rural areas. They are part of village life.
"We've been through a farcical consultation. They have decided in a completely arbitrary way without any consideration. The figures are shocking, but I'm not surprised.
"I'm grateful to Help the Aged for highlighting the impact. It only fortifies the view I had.”
Christopher Fraser, MP for South-West Norfolk, said: “The figures are simply appalling. The government's decision to cut funding for the sub-post office network is a cynical, cost-cutting policy that will prove devastating to those living in the countryside.”
An estimated 82,200 elderly people in the area will be affected, forcing them to travel further to a post office.
Fifty post office branches are set to shut as part of controversial nationwide cuts to the network, caused by the government's refusal to increase subsidies for loss-making branches.
The government's stance over funding of post offices is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's approval of the European Union budget deal, which increased our payments to the EU by an astonishing 63% to £115m (net) every single week between now and 2013 - putting the £150m annual subsidy for post offices in the shade.
Approval was given despite the EU's accounts not having been given a clean bill of health by auditors for the past thirteen years, and the organisation's terrible repuation for waste and fraud.
Help the Aged yesterday criticised the closure plan and accused the Post Office of ignoring the older population.
Pensioners are a primary customer base for post offices, with thousands collecting pensions from them each week.
Dr Alan Burnett, the charity's senior policy officer, said: “When you have a mobility problem or difficulty getting around, a journey extended by only half a mile is not a simple matter of a little more exercise - it is almost a complete removal of the service.
“Older people in Norfolk and West Suffolk are contacting us to say they feel ignored by the consultation process. It's beginning to seem as if the Post Office is merely paying lip service to government consultation regulations and not really listening to the valuable local information being given to them.
“If older people are not listened to, and their needs are not taken into account, the consequences for many will be extremely serious.”
So far, 970 branches have shut across the country, out of the 2,500 earmarked for closure. Less than 4% have been saved, despite numerous campaigns.
On a national scale, millions of pensioners are struggling with simple day-to-day tasks as a result of the ongoing closures, and Help the Aged claim that 2.3 million people will need to travel at least half a mile further afield to find a replacement post office.
Last night, two of the counties' MPs spoke angrily of the impact the scheme was set to have on their constituents, branding the consultation “farcical”.
Richard Spring, MP for West Suffolk, said: "We always said the post office closures would hit the most vulnerable, most particularly in rural areas. They are part of village life.
"We've been through a farcical consultation. They have decided in a completely arbitrary way without any consideration. The figures are shocking, but I'm not surprised.
"I'm grateful to Help the Aged for highlighting the impact. It only fortifies the view I had.”
Christopher Fraser, MP for South-West Norfolk, said: “The figures are simply appalling. The government's decision to cut funding for the sub-post office network is a cynical, cost-cutting policy that will prove devastating to those living in the countryside.”
Monday, 21 July 2008
Access to arthritis drugs denied
Around 60,000 people in the UK with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are being denied access to potentially life-changing drugs - reports ITV News today.
A decision by the National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) will mean that patients will not able able to try a second anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) if their first attempt at the therapy fails.
Anti-TNF therapy drugs - adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab - can slow the progress of disease and help to reduce symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, mobility and fatigue.
NICE said that giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not 'cost-effective' and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.
This is yet another example of health services restricting effective drugs on the grounds of costs that, if provided, could greatly improve many people's quality of life. All the while the government shamefully continues to waste an astonishing £115m a week on the audit-failing European Union.
Charities have said that moving from one therapy to a second or third has been established practice in the UK for years and the change could leave sufferers with pain and the possibility of long-term disability.
Rob Moots, ARMA clinician and professor of rheumatology at Liverpool University, said: "It's almost impossible to know which anti-TNF will work for a patient at the outset.
"Before this decision we could try patients on each of the three treatments in turn to find one that was effective for them - now we only have one shot at success.
"This flies in the face of clinical judgment. Many patients will be left in astonishing pain, while knowing we haven't explored all the options for them."
The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register shows that around 70% of patients will get a good response from a second anti-TNF if the effects of the first start to wane.
Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said the move, combined with a Nice decision in April to reject the drug abatacept, meant effective therapies for arthrities provided by the NHS had been cut from five to two.
She added: "This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales.
"Nice are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country, ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.
"Nice is systematically taking away clinically effective and proven treatments from patients and giving them just one roll of the dice when it comes to Anti-TNF treatment."
Ros Meek, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), said: "Nice's decision takes away access to a normal and independent life for the many thousands of people battling with the condition.
"It also totally contradicts Lord Darzi's pronouncements in his recent review of the NHS - in particular his focus on patient choice and patient empowerment.
"It's a prescription for pain."
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Nice has not yet issued final guidance to the NHS. Consultees now have the opportunity to appeal against the draft guidance. Subject to an appeal being received, guidance is expected in September 2008."
A decision by the National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) will mean that patients will not able able to try a second anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) if their first attempt at the therapy fails.
Anti-TNF therapy drugs - adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab - can slow the progress of disease and help to reduce symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, mobility and fatigue.
NICE said that giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not 'cost-effective' and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.
This is yet another example of health services restricting effective drugs on the grounds of costs that, if provided, could greatly improve many people's quality of life. All the while the government shamefully continues to waste an astonishing £115m a week on the audit-failing European Union.
Charities have said that moving from one therapy to a second or third has been established practice in the UK for years and the change could leave sufferers with pain and the possibility of long-term disability.
Rob Moots, ARMA clinician and professor of rheumatology at Liverpool University, said: "It's almost impossible to know which anti-TNF will work for a patient at the outset.
"Before this decision we could try patients on each of the three treatments in turn to find one that was effective for them - now we only have one shot at success.
"This flies in the face of clinical judgment. Many patients will be left in astonishing pain, while knowing we haven't explored all the options for them."
The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register shows that around 70% of patients will get a good response from a second anti-TNF if the effects of the first start to wane.
Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said the move, combined with a Nice decision in April to reject the drug abatacept, meant effective therapies for arthrities provided by the NHS had been cut from five to two.
She added: "This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales.
"Nice are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country, ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.
"Nice is systematically taking away clinically effective and proven treatments from patients and giving them just one roll of the dice when it comes to Anti-TNF treatment."
Ros Meek, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), said: "Nice's decision takes away access to a normal and independent life for the many thousands of people battling with the condition.
"It also totally contradicts Lord Darzi's pronouncements in his recent review of the NHS - in particular his focus on patient choice and patient empowerment.
"It's a prescription for pain."
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Nice has not yet issued final guidance to the NHS. Consultees now have the opportunity to appeal against the draft guidance. Subject to an appeal being received, guidance is expected in September 2008."
Labels:
abtacept,
anti-TNF,
arthritis,
drugs,
NHS funding
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
