Labour has shifted focus away from the NHS crisis. For what? | Owen Jones

The NHS is in crisis: a “humanitarian crisis”, in the words of the Red Cross. The service is Labour’s invention; at this moment, it should be the party’s focus. A pledge of £350m extra a week for the NHS was critical to the triumph of leave in the EU referendum. It was second in importance only to immigration. As Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings put it: “Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result suggests no.”

I’m not going to join the Twitter outrage over the Labour leadership declaring last night that it was “not wedded” to the right of Europeans to freedom of movement. We on the left sometimes fail to appreciate the distance that exists on immigration between us and the wider population. Name your demographic group: 18- to 25-year-olds, black and minority ethnic Britons, Londoners, Scots – all decisively report a desire to reduce immigration.

Does that mean Labour just blindly tails public opinion? No: that’s not what leadership is. Labour can credibly argue that the economy comes first and membership of the single market is the party’s priority. But it needs, at the very least, a language that reaches a public that overwhelmingly wants less immigration: basically, it must not make most Britons feel as though the party is flashing a V-sign in their face.

But Labour has now shifted the focus away from the NHS crisis, and for what? It is difficult to match what was trailed yesterday and what Jeremy Corbyn has said in his round of interviews today. The leader’s message on radio and TV was not, let’s say, very clear. Many supported Corbyn because they felt he would bring clarity: no more wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road, vacillating leadership. Fists would be swinging, there would be unequivocal opposition to the Tories. Today the leadership has antagonised many of its natural supporters, who are furious about what they see as concessions on freedom of movement; but those who take a different view on immigration will have heard little from Corbyn today that resonates with them.

More puzzlingly, Corbyn floated a proposal for a maximum level of earnings. As tax justice crusader Richard Murphy puts it: “A practical policy on high pay is to deny a company corporation tax relief on payment of all salaries of more than 10 times UK median wage.” This is a workable proposal that Labour should certainly explore and – I would argue – adopt. But why today? First you distract from focusing on the NHS with immigration, then you distract from your immigration distraction. Labour needs a clear vision backed up with clear messaging, not randomly throwing proposals into the ether.

As I’ve written before, the risk with the NHS is it becomes Labour’s crutch, and clearly it needs a much wider vision. But the NHS is currently in crisis. The government is under pressure over it. Labour should be hammering away at this uncompromisingly, and parking everything else. The Labour leadership has been privately discussing a big red bus to Copeland in advance of the byelection, emblazoned with a Labour promise to implement the £350m per week NHS pledge. This is a good idea, but Labour’s Treasury team worries about costs. On this policy – at this time – surely a Corbyn leadership can afford to throw a bit of caution to the wind?

There are some ardent Corbyn supporters who believe leftwing writers should not be making these sorts of public criticisms. The rest of the media have it covered, after all. But the Tories should be on the defensive on everything from Brexit to the NHS. Instead, they are currently, shamelessly, getting away with it all. Labour should be honing a clear, straightforward message, and sticking to it. Time is against them. They only have so many opportunities, and they need to seize them.

Labour has shifted focus away from the NHS crisis. For what? | Owen Jones

Brexit means "only major crisis will focus ministers on to NHS"

The NHS and social care are at risk of being downgraded as a priority by a government distracted by Brexit unless there is a major public health crisis, the former chief executive of the NHS has warned.

Nigel Crisp, who ran the NHS and Department of Health for six years, said the government’s need to concentrate on the economics of leaving the EU would be one of the three biggest risks to health and social care posed by the referendum vote, along with loss of staff who are EU citizens and a brain drain from medical research.

The crossbench peer issued the warning in evidence to the House of Commons health committee inquiry into the impact of Brexit on health and social care, at a time when senior politicians and medical leaders have been sounding the alarm that care for the elderly is close to collapse.

Last week, Philip Hammond, the chancellor, refused to bow to pressure to give more funding to social care or NHS at the autumn statement, prompting anger from Labour MPs and even some Conservatives.

In his evidence to the new inquiry, Crisp said the NHS and social care were already “dealing with major problems and facing an uncertain future” but the uncertainty of Brexit only makes it even more important that the government sets out a clear direction and strategy.

Listing the possible risks of Brexit in his evidence, he said: “Pressures on the economy will bring pressures on all public services, adding to existing ones. Moreover, the emphasis in government policy will of necessity be on addressing economic rather than social issues with the result that health and social care will become a lower priority – unless, of course, there is a major public crisis.”

He added: “My most immediate concern is that we haven’t yet seen any adequate mitigating strategy or actions being taken by the government. NHS England and local employers have attempted to reassure staff but we need to see a government-led comprehensive and well supported risk mitigation approach adopted and publicised.”

Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that Downing Street is well aware of the funding difficulties in the NHS and social care but believes the government’s position on funding can hold at least until after the major hurdle of triggering article 50 is out of the way at the end of March.

However, there are already warnings about the risk of a winter crisis in the NHS as cuts to social care places mean many elderly people are not being discharged from their hospital beds.

Senior figures in the medical profession, together with Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaders in local government, wrote to the Observer this weekend demanding a reversal of Philip Hammond’s decision not to offer more funding for social care in last week’s autumn statement.

They argued that the safety of millions of elderly people was at risk because of an acute financial shortfall in adult social care, which is in turn putting pressure on the NHS.

On Sunday, Stephen Dorrell, the former Conservative health secretary and chair of the NHS Confederation, also said that Hammond made a mistake in failing to give more funding to social care in the autumn statement.

His voice adds to other senior Tories, including fellow former health secretary Andrew Lansley and Sarah Wollaston, the chair of the Commons health select committee, in expressing fears that social care cuts are having a worrying effect on the NHS.

Responding to the warnings, a Treasury spokeswoman said: “The government has committed to increase NHS funding by £10bn above inflation by 2020/21, going beyond what the NHS requested.

“In addition, we have given local councils £3.5bn extra funding by 2020 for social care. Many councils are already providing high-quality social care services within existing budgets.”

Labour MPs expressed anger after Hammond did not mention social care once during his autumn statement speech to the Commons.

It prompted Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, to launch a national “Care for the NHS” campaign on Saturday.

Brexit means "only major crisis will focus ministers on to NHS"

How Foods You Prepare for Your Kids Impact Their Mental Health and Focus

Just the word “teenager” conjures up images of young people laughing and devouring food. Adolescents seem to have voracious appetites, and parents sometimes refer to them as “bottomless pits” when it comes to food consumption. While it’s tempting to keep convenient foods on hand that they can grab on the go, those foods might not give them the fuel that they need for proper mental function. Instead, they need a balance of fats, proteins, amino acids and other essential nutrients in order to focus on their school work.

The Teen’s Developing Brain

Your teen’s brain keeps developing until his early 20s, according to Dr. Neville Golden, the chief of adolescent medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. If a teen doesn’t ingest proper nutrition during this time, he will struggle with learning new tasks and information. In addition to proper hydration and rest, the food he eats will provide him with energy for growth.

An Overview of Essential Nutrients

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that teens need three meals per day and two healthy snacks. Instead of labeling foods as “good” or “bad,” they should be sure to eat foods that help the brain. They emphasize what we have heard for years — the importance of breakfast, especially when teens have a test. That first meal of the day should include protein, complex carbohydrates and healthy fats, carrying your son over until lunchtime. If he doesn’t eat at all, he might feel sluggish and struggle with concentration. This quick guideline will help you plan for your teen’s food consumption needs:

• Calories – Teen boys need about 2,800 calories per day — more than any other group of individuals.


• Protein – Your son should consume between 45 and 60 grams of protein daily, slightly more if he is active or involved in sports. The intake of proteins and amino acids can affect general health, including weight, temperament and sleep schedules.


• Fruits and vegetables – Males need about two cups of fruit daily, which delay aging, and three cups of vegetables to protect decision-making skills.


• Antioxidants – These provide the brain with energy and fight off free radicals.


• Fat – While the AAP places a recommended limit of 30 percent of daily calories — or about 930 calories — for teens, these should come from foods such as eggs, avocados, salmon, coconut oil, nuts and olive oil. While saturated and trans fats compromise brain function, Omegas 3 and 6, the superstars of fats, boost brain performance. These must come from the diet, usually in fatty fish and nuts.


• Carbohydrates – At least half and up to 60 percent of a teen’s calories should come from carbs, or about 130 grams of carbs daily. You can find great sources in whole grains, peas, beans and vegetables. Avoid processed foods, such as sugary drinks, candy and syrup. Another great source of complex carbs, found in whole grains, is brown rice or popcorn.


• Calcium – Teens need about 1,300 mg of calcium daily. They can obtain the necessary minimum requirement in calcium-fortified products and dairy. Kale, an often-overlooked source of calcium, also boasts of plethora of additional vitamins.

Additional necessary nutrients include from 8 to 11 mg of daily iron and 600 IU of Vitamin D, usually found in milk or dairy products but also metabolized from the sun.

How Foods You Prepare for Your Kids Impact Their Mental Health and Focus

NLP Tips for Success: How to Get Yourself to Focus

There comes a time in everyone’s day that they are going to have to focus, pay attention to detail, and remember that information. It’s just a part of life.

But some people have a hard time getting themselves to focus when it’s important, and often they miss out on information that will be useful to remember in the future.

Whether you are a student, a parent, or someone in the workplace, there will be times that you have to learn, and retain information. If you feel that you are a person who has a hard time doing this, or that it is simply out of your control, there is a very simple way to hone in your focus and get the job done.

Try out this little method to get yourself to focus…

Physically look up at the ceiling, close your eyes and completely clear your mind, and focus on your breath for a few seconds. Don’t think about the task at hand, don’t think about your baby at home, just make your thoughts quiet.

Then, open your eyes while still looking up, and while maintaining a clear head slowly bring your eyes down to your task while strongly imagining that focus staying right in your peripheral vision as you carry out your job.

If you feel your focus heading in another direction and need to regroup, start over and repeat the process. It doesn’t take more than five minutes, and can make all the difference in completing tasks and learning new information.

For other NLP tips visit iNLP Center – or check out this post on manifesting your desires.

NLP Tips for Success: How to Get Yourself to Focus

Marty Samuels Is Correct: A Medical professional Need to Focus On What"s Ideal For The Patient In Front Of Her

The lead story in today’s New York Times brings to the fore an emerging question in medication: when supplying care and supplying guidance, need to a doctor think only of the patient in front of her, or does she have an obligation to stability the needs of the individual patient with the broader demands of society?

I strongly agree with Harvard neurologist Marty Samuels, who advised the NYT, “There ought to be forces in society who must be concerned about the budget, about how numerous M.R.I.s we do, but they shouldn’t be functioning simultaneously as physicians. “

Added the Occasions, “Samuels  said medical professionals risked losing the believe in of individuals if they told patients, ‘I’m not going to do what I believe is ideal for you since I believe it is bad for the wellness care spending budget in Massachusetts.’”

It would seem definitely essential to me that when a patient receives suggestions from a physician, the patient knows that this displays the very best healthcare guidance from the medical doctor, and not some murky weighing of no matter whether the patient is far more deserving than society.  This is consistent with a need for cost transparency (this can matter a whole lot to sufferers), and with doctors comprehending and currently being able to describe the charges and prospective positive aspects of a range of remedy alternatives (to the extent numerous alternatives are available — sadly, this often is not the situation).

The foundation of the physician-patient romantic relationship, the bedrock of care, is, should, and must be the unshakable trust the patient has that his physician will do what’s very best for him.  Once this faith is breached, it might never ever be restored, to the long term detriment of both patients and the occupation of medication.

At that stage, physicians will really transform into the bureaucrats and bean counters they’ve struggled so valiantly not to turn into.

- – – -

I’ve mentioned a quantity of essential troubles related to sufferers and populations extensively ahead of, in 3 relevant contexts: (one) Should clinicians target on patients or populations? (two) Finish of lifestyle (or not) choices (three) Balancing patient and population advantage in medical research.  See associated links beneath:

Must Doctors Emphasis On Sufferers Or Populations:

“Focus Element: Should Your Physician Be Pondering About Society’s Healthcare Charges?”

“Case Review: What Would You Do Right here If You Have been The Payor? The Medical doctor? The Patient?”

“Do No Harm – To Patients Or To Populations?”

On Finish Of Existence (or not) Decisions:

“Right to Live”

“End-Of-Lifestyle Health-related Guidance: Devaluing Individuals In The Title Of A Better Good”

“’But Doctor, I Want To Live!’  The Other Side Of The ‘Dignified Death’ Debate”

Marty Samuels Is Correct: A Medical professional Need to Focus On What"s Ideal For The Patient In Front Of Her