South London Healthcare Trust, a toxic financial legacy

This morning's news that South London Healthcare NHS Trust (SLHT), which runs Queen Mary’s Sidcup, Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich and the Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley, could be put into administration was a yet another element in what has been a long story of bad news.

Back in 2007 Labour's Darzi Plan identified Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup as an easy target for cut because of huge financial burden imposed on SE London's other hospitals by badly negotiated PFI schemes.  I have felt for some time that the trust's management have failed to create an proper alternative plan to the Labour reorganisation.

SLHT has been losing £1 million a week and posted the largest deficit in England of £69.8 million in 2011/12 alone. Andrew Lansley, The Secretary of State for Health, has had a policy of not overruling local NHS management, but in this case the financial situation has meant that this is no longer an option.


He notified the Trust yesterday (25 June 2012) that he is likely to put it under the control of a special NHS administrator with powers to make recommendations on how to turn the finances around.  I am meeting with Local MP James Brokenshire on Thursday and will discuss ways of ensuring the potential management will protect the services as Queen Mary's and continue the plans for new services to to brought to the area as part of the QMH Heath Campus.  I know that James has already spoken to the Health Secretary on this issue.

England lose on penalties, House of Lords reform and Scottish independence

These were the stories that greeted me on the radio news this morning, it was enough to make me want to pull the covers over my head.

England seemed more unified as a team than at any time in the last few years and much credit should go to Roy Hodgson, but they were outplayed by Italy and in the end it was a fair result.  Over the next two years Hodgson will have to find some new players with both talent and physical stamina to have any chance in the World Cup.  Well that's what my friends who know something about football tell me.

House of Lords reform. Why? I genuinely can't understand why this issue is being driven through now, or indeed at all.  If we were starting from scratch we wouldn't create The Lords as we currently have them.  But we're not starting from scratch and despite/because of its weird structure it works.  An elected Lords would lose so much real world experience and would become filled with the same type of people that mainly fill the Commons. Career politicians.

Scottish independent, no one really wants it do they? I know the SNP don't.  What they want is more devolved power, Devo Max, and the independence referendum is just a Trojan horse for that.  How would the SNP define themselves if they ever did get independence? My advice to them, just like it was for Lib Dems desperate for coalition government, be careful what you wish for.

Also what would they do for money?  I hear that their plan is to peg the Scottish Pound to the British (English?) Pound, are they not watching the news from Greece? Can they not see what happens when two very different economies are joined by the same currency?

Well, lucky me, I can forget all about national and international politics for a few hours and focus on London, and it's even sunny!

Bus strike, about politics or pay?

Is this strike about a pay deal for bus drivers or an attempt by Unite to disrupt the Olympic and Paralympic Games?  The reason I ask is twofold.

Firstly because back in February of this year Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite the union that has gone on strike, called on unions to disrupt the Games as a protest against the government.  This campaign of "civil disobedience" is clearly politically driven.

Secondly, we have to wonder why the extra money put on the table by the ODA, money which would have met almost all of the union demands, wan't put to the union members by the union leadership.

As I've written before, I believe that the leadership of the transport unions are playing out their own political battles using their own members as pawns.

Luckily the tube network and rail network look like they have been able to deal with the extra passenger demand but unfortunately many people will have been disadvantaged by this strike action. The most perverse thing is that it is disproportionately hurting lower paid Londoners.

My first Fire Authority meeting

It's clear that some members of LFEPA feel that there are scores to settle and are still in party political knock-about mode.  Despite this we did, eventually, get a fair bit done.

I was disappointed that a raft of last minute motions and amendments were tabled by the Labour group when I had made it clear, from the day of my appointment that I wanted to work more collaboratively than in the past.  This position was welcomed by all, yet poorly thought through motions were being thrashed out in the middle of the meeting rather than being discussed beforehand.  Most frustrating was that most were voted through by all groups or withdrawn by Labour and a lot of time and anguish could have been saved.  I hope that, rather than just talk the talk, the Labour group will get into the habit of working cross party to help protect Londoners.


I was pleased that I got support to keep the Fire Museum open, with private sector sponsorship, until a new permanent home can be found but worried that Labour, Lib Dems and Green members chose to ignore the Fire Commissioners advice over outsourcing the control centre.  The savings that we failed to grasp today will make it far harder for us to avoid more painful decisions over the next few years.


I took the opportunity to highlight some excellent and professional work by fire fighters over the last few months and despite a few hitches I felt the meeting went well.  I remain hugely proud to be involved with the brigade and the people in it.

Poverty isn't just about money

Looking over someone's shoulder on the train this morning (naughty, I know) I saw the Mirror make the predictable attack on Iain Duncan-Smith's proposals about how we view poverty. IDS has said something which is sacrilegious to the left, that money isn't the only solution to the problems of poverty. The Labour party's Fleet Street mouthpiece has reminded their readers that IDS isn't himself poor, and by extension has no right discussing these issues.

If all you want is some fuel for faux outrage you can stop reading here.

IDS has made the eradication of poverty and deprivation his mission. Notice I said eradication rather than alleviation, it's an important difference. Labour believed that getting money to poor families was enough, it seemed simple, give poor people enough money and they stopped being poor. Yet it didn't work.

They seemed to miss the point that poverty was often the symptom rather than the ailment. If the parents in a family are seriously addicted to drugs and alcohol throwing money at them will let them buy more deeply into their addiction. Lifting a child one pound over an arbetry line which we claim has "lifted them out of poverty" without addressing educational failures won't keep them out of poverty for long or prevent their children following the same path. It isn't really that new an idea, do you recall the old proverb, "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to catch fish, feed him for life"?

IDS is right to challenge he childishly simplistic notion that more welfare = less poverty. He is genuinely trying to make poverty history rather than just a little bit less unpleasant.

Good will and curiosity from fire fighters

This afternoon I popped along to a charity fire engine pull at Biggin Hill airfield, organised by the Fire Brigade in Bromley.  I had a good chat with fire fighters from stations across south London, including the winning team from Clapham's red watch.

The level of good will expressed towards me was fantastic, I think there is a genuine desire to develop a better working relationship between the operational fire fighters, Fire Brigade management and the Fire Authority and there was a lot of curiosity about how I was planning to run things.

Naturally I was bombarded with questions about yesterday's very speculative article in the Evening Standard about how we might save the £30million in next years budget.  I said that at this stage nothing was on or off the table but I wanted them to understand that any decisions made will be cross-party (as no one party has a majority on the Authority), that my priority will be to maintain the safety of Londoners and that I won't bullshit them.

That seemed to go down well enough.

When in a hole

I was listening to George Osborne on Radio 4's Today Program this morning when he said something that I wish we heard a little more often in politics. He admitted the that the government had got it wrong on some of the elements of the budget and rather than "keep digging" he said that they had listened and changed their plans. Too often politicians are criticised for not listening, but when they do it is described as a U-turn. In the private sector, products and services are launched, some work, some don't. The ones that aren't successful are dropped or changed. Why should it be different in politics?