UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Howard A Treesong**

Skullhammer wrote:
You wont need to wait for a second referendum as unless art50 is signed off by the end of march 2017 its going to need a majority vote of the eu council to leave. Which is quite frankly outragous.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/fact-if-the-uk-doesnt-have-a-signed-deal-by-april-2017-brexit-is-in-grave-danger/

That kind of approach to taking away people's freedom of choice will throw a lot of fuel onto the fire that is suspicion that the EU is powerhungry and controlling. Has anyone ever heard of an organisation you cannot leave without the permission of the others and to which you are demanded to pay in? Between that and the way that countries like France threatening to remove the Calais border and screw us on tariffs, the EU sounds more and more like a protection racket. You can't leave, just pay in and follow the rules - or else!

The 52% will go mad if they're told 'yes we voted to leave but the other countries changed the rules to say no, so you're stuck'. That's exactly the sort of high handed controlling attitude that has led to the situation we are in. Why are they so scared of democracy and self determination?

I think all the fuss over EU membership comes down to border control and immigration. If that could be negotiated upon then actual membership would be a non-issue for most. But the EU won't budge an inch despite it clearly being out of control.

**Future War Cultist**

Heisperus wrote:
My brother in law's dad pictures this return to the glory days of the empire but it seems to escape him that we're merely an insignificant little island that's contributing to the end of globalisation.

If we are insignificant then we won't put too much of a dent on it.

@ Howard A. Treesong

I exalt you.

**jouso**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Skullhammer wrote:
You wont need to wait for a second referendum as unless art50 is signed off by the end of march 2017 its going to need a majority vote of the eu council to leave. Which is quite frankly outragous.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/fact-if-the-uk-doesnt-have-a-signed-deal-by-april-2017-brexit-is-in-grave-danger/

That kind of approach to taking away people's freedom of choice will throw a lot of fuel onto the fire that is suspicion that the EU is powerhungry and controlling. Has anyone ever heard of an organisation you cannot leave without the permission of the others and to which you are demanded to pay in? Between that and the way that countries like France threatening to remove the Calais border and screw us on tariffs, the EU sounds more and more like a protection racket. You can't leave, just pay in and follow the rules - or else!

https://secondreading.uk/uncategorized/extending-qualified-majority-voting-in-the-european-union-does-this-mean-the-end-of-british-sovereignty/

tl;dr no. Britain won't be prevented to leave if they don't trigger art50 before april 2017.

This thread really is a really interesting case study on the do's and don't's of referenda.

**Whirlwind**

I'm not sure I've seen this posted, but sorry if it has; this is the full memo:-

- The Political Domain

The Prime Minister’s over-riding objective has been to keep her party from repeating its history of splitting four times in the past 200 years over global trade - each time being out of power for 15-30 years. The public stance of Government is orientated primarily to its own supporters, with industry in particular being on the radarscreen - yet.

The Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court has to be seen in this light - it is about avoiding any more public debate than necessary because it will expose splits within the predominantly “remain” Conservative MPs and intensify the pressure from predominantly “leave” constituency parties. A General Election is only a last resort for three reasons - boundary changes (that favour the Conservatives) will not be effective until 2019; the Fixed Term Parliaments Act obstructs Prime Ministerial freedom to call an election at will; and it may suit major decision makers to slowly shift away from more difficult aspects of Brexit on the grounds that Parliament has forced them to do so.

The divisions within the Cabinet are between the three Brexiteers on one side and Philip Hammond/Greg Clark on the other side. The Prime Minister is rapidly acquiring the reputation of drawing in decisions and details to settle matters herself - which is unlikely to be sustainable. Overall, it appears best to judge who is winning the debate by assuming that the noisiest individuals have lost the intra-Government debate and are stirring up external supporters.

The Supreme Court appears likely to delay its ruling until early January and, assuming it sustains the High Court, a short enabling bill will then be submitted to Parliament, permitting the Government to invoke Article 50 in March as planned. The Government will probably be able to face down wrecking amendments, but the debate in Parliament will certainly shift expectations of what will be achieved/sellable in Brexit negotiations. Remain supporters can be expected to reserve their fire until winners and losers emerge from negotiation and the political atmosphere allows more sophisticated assessment of choices.

- The Government Domain

Individual Departments have been busily developing their projects to implement Brexit, resulting in well over 500 projects, which are beyond the capacity and capability of Government to execute quickly. One Department estimates that it needs a 40% increase in staff to cope with its Brexit projects. In other words, every Department has developed a “bottom up” plan of what the impact of Brexit could be - and its plan to cope with the “worst case”. Although necessary, this falls considerably short of having a “Government plan for Brexit” because it has no prioritisation and no link to the overall negotiation strategy.

However, it may be six months before there is a view on priorities/negotiation strategy as the political situation in the UK and the EU evolves. Despite extended debate among Permanent Secretaries, no common strategy has emerged, in part because the potential scope and negotiating positions have to be curtailed before realistic planning can happen, in part because of the divisions within the Cabinet. It is likely that the senior ranks in the Civil Service will feel compelled to present potential high level plan(s) to avoid further drift.

Departments are struggling to come up to speed on the potential Brexit effects on industry. This is due to starting from a relatively low base of insight and also due to fragmentation - Treasury “owning” financial services, DH-BEIS both covering life sciences, DCMS for telecoms, BEIS most other industries, DIT building parallel capability focused on trade etc.

Capability-building is making slow progress, partly through deliberate control by the Cabinet Office and partly from Treasury’s opening negotiating position that Departments will meet Brexit costs from existing settlements - although no one is treating that position as sustainable. Expectations of increased headcount are in the 10-30,000 range. Initiatives to build capability are getting off the ground - the Diplomatic Academy is providing trade training programmes, Cabinet Office is discussing system-wide capability programmes.

The Autumn Statement on 23rd November is expected to provide some headlines in terms of infrastructure investment, making the UK fit for growth and the inclusive economy. It will not provide resources for the Civil Service to grow its Brexit capacity and capability. In fact, we are more likely to see a further squeeze on Departmental operating costs to compensate for new spending.

:: The Industry Domain

Government expects lobbying on three levels to continue:

1. Company-specific decisions - the Nissan investment decision is a prime example. These are viewed as major opportunities/threats for Government. Other major players can be expected to, similar to Nissan, point a gun at the Government’s head.

2. Industry insights - the major challenge for industry and Government are “the unknown unknowns” where industry has to educate Government fast on the most important negotiating issues - e.g., they think they know about talent, but know they know little about data.

3. Overall business concerns - the province of CBI and largely dealt with as a PR issue.

Industry has two unpleasant realisations - first, that the Government’s priority remains its political survival, not the economy - second, that there will be no clear economic-Brexit strategy any time soon because it is being developed on a case-by-case basis as specific decisions are forced on Government.

The article where it is can be found here (interesting the Liz Kendall has confirmed that she has had similar conversations):-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/conservatives-brexit-plan_uk_582ab63be4b09ac74c5369b0?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

I think what is most damning is the view that the Government (despite May's claims) is only interested in one thing - to keep themselves in power for the long term. I think this is why it is likely that May is so upset because it goes against everything is saying publically (not that I am surprised it is the Tory party after all). If I was to hazard a guess what has happened is the Deloittes were given the role of consulting with all the Departments as to the impacts of Brexit (I imagine that this happened in a few weeks of the vote), what issues there would be and what resources they required. So they have collated the information and reported back to government. I guess the response they had was less than satisfactory and hence this internal memo was circulated in response to the outcome of their work (basically it sounds like May just told them she would decide everything). As for veracity Deloittes have now come out and noted it was for internal use only so it pretty much confirms that it was true. The memo itself might have been unsolicited but the work they did to get there probably wasn't.

However it does paint a picture that Brexit is a shambles internally and they have no clue as to what to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why hardcore Brexiteers are passionate not to have a second referendum.

No, I oppose a Referendum because Remainers (particularly Parliament) would consider a second vote (favourable to them) to be final and would "settle the issue" for a generation or more.

A good 50% of the country (or at least, 50% of the people who can be bothered to express their opinion with a vote) are Eurosceptic. Euroscepticism has been rising for the last decade, but we were denied the right to vote on the EU until this year, and then when we finally were given the right to vote, it was a complete shambles and was immediately undermined and rejected by large swathes of Parliament.

It was a shambles way before the vote though. From the DC promising things in an unrealistic timescale; to fearing he may lose too many votes to UKIP; to the Government happily blaming the EU when things went wrong (even when the EU had nothing to do with it) and congratulating themselves when things went right (even if the EU had a big hand in it)

Can you not see why we're bitter and outraged over this? We fought for decades for a vote, and we won it, narrowly. Now we're facing the very real possibility of being forced to vote again in the space of a year and losing thanks to the incompetence of politicians who only called it because they thought they would have their way, and didn't bother to come up with a backup plan in case they lost.

I think the outrage applies to both sides but for different reasons! However if as you note EUscepticism is rising then that should mean any second referendum will be won again by Brexiters by a greater margin. So where's the worry, unless of course you are worried that some of the population might change their minds and believe they were hoodwinked. Unless it is a resounding win for one side or another there is always going to be this argument however. But it is not unreasonable to ask the populace again but the next time on the basis of actual concrete information rather than soundbites (on both sides) isn't it?

This is par for the course for the EU. If it doesn't get the answer it wants, the people are forced to vote again.

I'm not sure the EU body (and not random individuals) have said that the vote should be re-run though? So I'm not sure why you can blame this on the EU? But I'm happy to be enlightened?

**Skullhammer**

Well as to the changes to lisbon someone should tell the eu it wont effect the uk

Evidence right from the horses mouth

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...16-2328_en.htm

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

It is a QVM issue after 31st March 2017!

**Mr. Burning**

I think DC's spin machine was as clueless as media pollsters and pundits.

He formed a coalition with the Lib Dems (Unexpected?)

Gained a majority in the next GE (Unexpected)

And was probably assured that it wouldn't even be a close run thing in an EU referendum.

June 24th was a shambles because IMO no one who had the ability to change events believed that a leave vote would be possible.

It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that the £350million bus and talks of reclaiming our borders and immigration controls were signed off on in the belief that they wouldn't be significant enough to alter the shoe in result of remain.

**jouso**

Skullhammer wrote:
Well as to the changes to lisbon someone should tell the eu it wont effect the uk

Evidence right from the horses mouth

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...16-2328_en.htm

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

It is a QVM issue after 31st March 2017!

Negotiations with a former member is a QVM issue, said member leaving is still a national matter.

Bolded relevant parts for clarity.

**Skullhammer**

Fair enough. But it will definatly need to shown like that to people as it could prove incendiary otherwise, as most people will only see the headlines and are not lawers to deciper is 'clause 123 over rules section 456 of treaty xyz' so to speak.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Nah, I call bullgak on this memo. In fact, it's concentrated bullgak

It's construction, the use of language, the way it's couched....

Not for me

I'm a student of history and politics, and as a result, I've came across tons of official documents.

This feels out of place, as though it were designed to be planted in The Guardian newspaper or something...

Incidentally, the Guardian don't seem to be making a fuss of this - normally they'd be over it like a bad rash, but they're quiet.

That alone tells me something.

I mean, the claim that the Tories could be out of power for 15-20 years?

Have they never heard of Jeremy Corbyn?

I could be wrong, and If I am, I'll be the first to put my hand up, but this memo feels off, as though somebody is planning mischief....

**Whirlwind**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Nah, I call bullgak on this memo. In fact, it's concentrated bullgak

It's construction, the use of language, the way it's couched....

Not for me

I'm a student of history and politics, and as a result, I've came across tons of official documents.

This feels out of place, as though it were designed to be planted in The Guardian newspaper or something...

Sorry Deloitte's have admitted that it was an internal memo. Definitely real. Clever couching of wording though. Read what it doesn't say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/leaked-brexit-memo-deloitte-touting-for-business-downing-street_uk_582b21ede4b0ec3145f9fef1?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

“This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences.

“It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department, and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall. This work was conducted without access to No.10 or input from any other government departments.”

**Skullhammer**

So gak stirring then. Or maybe a job request. Either way the media today have (mostly) been swallowing it whole and basicaly saying told you so.

**Whirlwind**

Skullhammer wrote:
So gak stirring then. Or maybe a job request. Either way the media today have (mostly) been swallowing it whole and basicaly saying told you so.

Nah, you're missing the subtleties of what they said.

They specifically said the memo and *only* the memo were not commissioned by No 10 or other government departments. Nor did they refute what the memo said (only that it was *intended* for internal audiences). Basically they are confirming in a more subtle way that they agree with the memo and they stand by what it says. The information is also their opinion (and I'd hazard a guess they were commissioned to try and find this information). In fact it the way they say *intended primarily* (so who else saw it?) makes me wonder whether it was a 'deliberate' leak to highlight how much of a mess the government is currently in. For what purposes it is unclear.

I've worked with these types of organisations before. It's the intricacies of the language used that is important. The fact the PM condemned it so quickly shows how damaging she thinks it is (and hence how much truth it probably contains). Compare this to the Mail ("Enemies of the People") which they never condemned. They don't want you to think they aren't working for the people (whereas in reality they are working only for themselves and how Brexit can benefit the Tory party).

**Skullhammer**

Come on whrilwind

“This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences.

“It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department, and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall. This work was conducted without access to No.10 or input from any other government departments.”

It was made and released to gak stir. Im not saying there wrong but the more of these type of memos are leaked the less they will be belived which in turn increases distrust in the politicos and could possibly lead to a "unfortunate" outcome.

**Kilkrazy**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why hardcore Brexiteers are passionate not to have a second referendum.

No, I oppose a Referendum because Remainers (particularly Parliament) would consider a second vote (favourable to them) to be final and would "settle the issue" for a generation or more.

A good 50% of the country (or at least, 50% of the people who can be bothered to express their opinion with a vote) are Eurosceptic. Euroscepticism has been rising for the last decade, but we were denied the right to vote on the EU until this year, and then when we finally were given the right to vote, it was a complete shambles and was immediately undermined and rejected by large swathes of Parliament.

Can you not see why we're bitter and outraged over this? We fought for decades for a vote, and we won it, narrowly. Now we're facing the very real possibility of being forced to vote again in the space of a year and losing thanks to the incompetence of politicians who only called it because they thought they would have their way, and didn't bother to come up with a backup plan in case they lost.

... ...

You can always vote to Leave again and if enough people do so there will be a Leave result.

OTOH if enough people have changed their mind, that's democracy in action.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

No. I will refuse to respect the result, just like Remainers are doing with the Leave vote.

**Future War Cultist**

That's assuming that after a second referendum we'd even be allowed to 'change our mind'. Because you can bet your arse that as soon as a vote comes back with a majority for remain that'll be the end of the discussion forever.

You can also bet your arse that if a second vote came back as a majority for leave (again) they'll still find excuses to delay it then drop it.

**Howard A Treesong**

You have to be careful about putting multiple referenda to people, it might look like you're hoping to get a preferred result. Who is to say which result you finally accept so as to avoid having another vote six months after that too? We don't rerun general elections because people change their mind two months into a new government.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
You have to be careful about putting multiple referenda to people, it might look like you're hoping to get a preferred result. Who is to say which result you finally accept so as to avoid having another vote six months after that too? We don't rerun general elections because people change their mind two months into a new government.

Plus it'll strengthen the case for a second Scottish Indy Ref. The SNP would probably consider it a legal precedent.

**Future War Cultist**

I find it aggravating to be told that this is all democracy in action, when we had a straight yes or no referendum (all the terms of which were set out by the heavily pro remain parliament) which produced a narrow yes result. But apparently because people change their minds we have to keep having referendums (that is, until the right result is produced). With this logic we might as well have our general elections immediately after one another. Yes, let's have our general elections on a continuous loop indefinitely. Because we might have changed our minds.

Or instead, how about letting us go ahead with brexit to begin with and then about five to ten years down the line when we've actually seen what it's like we could decide if we've changed our minds or not. So that the referendum actually meant something.

Again, by making the referendum advisory only, the remain side created a heads they win tails we lose situation. Vote to remain, the matter is settled forever. Vote to leave..ahhh,wait, oh...are you sure you haven't changed your mind? Let's try that again..."

**AlmightyWalrus**

If nothing else this whole affair illustrates the importance of not assuming that one can come up with solutions to extremely complicated matters in an ad hoc manner.

**Heisperus**

Future War Cultist wrote:

Or instead, how about letting us go ahead with brexit to begin with and then about five to ten years down the line when we've actually seen what it's like we could decide if we've changed our minds or not. So that the referendum actually meant something.

The main issue with that idea is that the process to rejoin the EU is likely to be a long involved process and the EU will hold all the cards for negotiation after the British public threw their collective toys out of the pram.
The other issue is whether rejoining the EU will be enough to remedy the damage to the country that article 50 will cause.
It's no doubt going to happen, otherwise the government are open to accusations of being undemocratic. They're just trying to work out the method of achieving exit that will screw us over the least.

A lot of what we're about to do as a country is irreversible in the short term. It won't be a case of "oops haha we've screwed the economy and no longer have any power on the international stage. Let's go back to how it was before"

**Skullhammer**

But she is non biased.....riiight

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

**tneva82**

Heisperus wrote:
A lot of what we're about to do as a country is irreversible in the short term. It won't be a case of "oops haha we've screwed the economy and no longer have any power on the international stage. Let's go back to how it was before"

As it is Britain has already done irreversible decisions. Even if they would decide to leave they would still have hurt them in the process. The relationship wouldn't be same anyway and their interests would get less concern anyway.

**Mr. Burning**

Well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37987213

The RSPCA should be stripped of its powers to routinely prosecute animal welfare cases, according to MPs.

....The Commons environment committee said there was a "conflict of interest" between the charity's power to prosecute and its role in investigating cases, campaigning and fundraising.
But the RSPCA defended its work and said the move was not supported by the government or animal welfare groups.
The government says it will consider the committee's recommendations.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee called on ministers to change the law concerning the RSPCA's powers.
It said the charity should continue to investigate animal welfare cases, but then pass their findings to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or another body with the power to carry out the role of prosecuting.
If there were no statutory alternatives - and where a private prosecution would further its charitable aims - the RSPCA could still be allowed to bring a case, said the committee.
But the cross-party committee was not unanimous; the call to transfer powers was opposed by three Labour MPs and one SDLP MP, and carried by the five Conservatives and one SNP MP.....

In an ideal world prosecution should be handled by the CPS however not all cases put to it are equal nor are they all deemed 'worthy' of taking to court. Marginal chance of conviction, cost of prosecuting a case vs the public interest could see less animal cruelty and neglect cases coming to trial equally many cases would see lesser charges being brought, which have little to no deterrent effect.

**Stranger83**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why hardcore Brexiteers are passionate not to have a second referendum.

No, I oppose a Referendum because Remainers (particularly Parliament) would consider a second vote (favourable to them) to be final and would "settle the issue" for a generation or more.

A good 50% of the country (or at least, 50% of the people who can be bothered to express their opinion with a vote) are Eurosceptic. Euroscepticism has been rising for the last decade, but we were denied the right to vote on the EU until this year, and then when we finally were given the right to vote, it was a complete shambles and was immediately undermined and rejected by large swathes of Parliament.

Can you not see why we're bitter and outraged over this? We fought for decades for a vote, and we won it, narrowly. Now we're facing the very real possibility of being forced to vote again in the space of a year and losing thanks to the incompetence of politicians who only called it because they thought they would have their way, and didn't bother to come up with a backup plan in case they lost.

... ...

You can always vote to Leave again and if enough people do so there will be a Leave result.

OTOH if enough people have changed their mind, that's democracy in action.

Assuming that the referendum is paid for entirely for those supporting remain, and a date decided by leave then sure - go right ahead, I'm confident leave would win again,

I fail to see why when remain was allowed to massively stack the deck in it's favor (an additional spend in the government 'informative' leaflet and picking the date of the vote) the taxpayer should have to foot the bill to hold a second referendum just because some people don;t like the result of the first one.

**Future War Cultist**

Skullhammer wrote:
But she is non biased.....riiight

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

There was never any chance of these judges letting Brexit begin. Their minds were already made up.

@ Heisperus

I never pretended that Brexit wouldn't have short term problems. I was always focusing on the long term benefits instead.

@ Stranger83

Good points.

**loki old fart**

NHS bosses 'trying to keep cuts secret'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37943379

NHS chiefs are trying to keep plans to cut hospital services in England secret, an investigation has found.

Full details of 44 reviews of services around the country - which involve closing some A&Es or, in one case, a whole hospital - are yet to emerge.

That is because NHS England told local managers to keep the plans "out of the public domain" and avoid requests for information, the King's Fund suggested.

Managers were even told how to reject freedom of information requests.

The King's Fund report did not include any details of cuts, but from the leaks and plans that have been published so far a partial picture is emerging of what is involved.

This includes:

Plans in south west London to close one of five hospitals - St George's, Kingston, Croydon, St Helier or Epsom
The North Tees proposal to centralise specialist services, including A&E, on two sites. It would lead to services being downgraded at one of the three major hospitals in the area
In Devon bosses are looking at whether to close some A&E, maternity and stroke services at hospitals across the county so they can be centralised at bigger sites
In Merseyside there has been talk of merging four hospitals - the Royal Liverpool, Broadgreen, Aintree and Liverpool Women's - to plug a £1bn shortfall, according to leaked documents
Plans in Birmingham and Solihull involve reorganising maternity services with fears this could result in fewer units
Bosses at North Central London have talked about a consolidation of services on fewer sites, leading to fears that the Whittington Hospital could lose its A&E

During its research, the King's Fund carried out interviews with staff involved in four of the reviews, known as sustainability and transformation plans (STPs). These were done on an anonymized basis.

The local managers said they had been told to keep the process "private and confidential", which one described as "ludicrous", while another said the leadership had made the "wrong judgement call" in its approach to managing the process.

Another person involved complained about being in meetings and wondering why there were no "real people", such as patients and members of the public, involved.

The King's Fund was told senior leaders at NHS England and NHS Improvement, which regulate NHS trusts, wanted to "manage" the narrative around the process, because of the sensitive nature of some of the changes.

But the approach has meant that the views of the public and frontline staff have largely been absent in the process so far, the think tank said.

Researchers said there were signs from the plans they had seen so far that services were being centralised at a smaller number of hospitals to make care safer and more efficient.

The King's Fund said such plans had the potential to improve patient care, but warned the process had increasingly become financially driven in recent months, which could be risky.

The think tank suggested there were "clearly anxieties" among ministers and the NHS leadership over the way the plans could be interpreted by the public.

But King's Fund chief executive Chris Ham said the process had gone against the established "rules" of good engagement and consultation.

He said the idea of reviewing local NHS services was still the "right thing to do", but questioned whether there was enough money and time to make a success of the shake-up.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Skullhammer wrote:
But she is non biased.....riiight

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/supreme-court-judges-views-on-article-50-legislation-anger-leave-campaigners

So a Supreme Court Judge, who has a much firmer grasp of the legal questions involved than pretty much anyone else, pointed out that there might be legal issues. Since you disagree, that clearly means that she's biased, not that you're just wrong.

**Herzlos**

loki old fart wrote:
NHS bosses 'trying to keep cuts secret'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37943379

NHS chiefs are trying to keep plans to cut hospital services in England secret, an investigation has found.

Full details of 44 reviews of services around the country - which involve closing some A&Es or, in one case, a whole hospital - are yet to emerge.
<snip>

And you people keep voting in the fething Tories. Cutting back the NHS is about the only thing they consistently try and do.

**Mr. Burning**

I saw that article the other day. I think Trust bosses and mangers are damned by any action they take.

There needs to be an honest appraisal and review of the entire NHS operation.

I saw that Dementia and dementia related illnesses have over taken heart disease as the main cause of death within the UK and Wales. That's more funding needed right there.

Do we make cuts within the NHS cash to pay for improvements to dementia care and prevention? Do we call for cash to come from the public purse (meaning cuts to other services). Cuts to defence spending? tax raising? more welfare cuts?

Do we add to our tab and pump new cash into the service?

Should the public expect that the NHS is funded no matter what? Is the NHS a right or a privilege?