England: Boris Johnson’s intention is clear: he wants a ‘people v parliament’ election



Boris Johnson’s intention is clear: he wants a ‘people v parliament’ election

The plan to prorogue parliament is a nakedly populist move that Johnson hopes will lead to a parliamentary majority

 Boris Johnson confirms plan to suspend UK parliament – video

Boris Johnson’s plan to prorogue parliament ahead of a Queen’s speech on 14 October is intended to provoke parliamentarians into blocking a no-deal Brexit, or triggering a general election through a vote of no confidence. Both are feasible in the time available.

The last time parliament stepped in to block no deal earlier in the year, the necessary legislation was passed in just three days. Johnson has deliberately left enough time for parliament to seize control again. That’s because Johnson’s real objective is to use Brexit to win a general election, rather than use a general election to secure Brexit. By forcing the hands of his opponents, he has defined the terrain for a “people versus parliament” election. Expect him to run on “Back Boris, Take Back Britain”. He will say that the only way to definitely leave on 31 October is to give him a parliamentary majority to do so. The man of Eton, Oxford and the Telegraph will position himself as the leader of the people against the hated establishment and “remainder elite”.

Johnson’s electoral strategy is simple: unite the Brexit-supporting right of politics behind him while remainders are fractured across Labor, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Since the day he took office, Johnson has been acting to consolidate the votes of leave supporters behind him. From Brexit party supporters to leave-backing Labor voters, Johnson has sought to create a winning electoral coalition.

The Tories have spent recent weeks closing off predicted Labor attack lines. Sajid Javid has announced a one-year spending review will take place on 4 September. After nearly a decade of relentless reductions in spending, the public have plainly tired of austerity. Waiting times in the NHS are longer; class sizes are larger; and the police are no longer able to keep up with rising crime or keep many communities safe. Johnson’s government has already promised more spending in each of these areas.

Sajid Javid
 ‘The Tories have spent recent weeks closing off predicted Labor attack lines. Sajid Javid has announced a one-year spending review will take place on 4 September.’ Photograph: Matt Dunham/PA

But these are very Tory announcements, with an added right-wing edge. So the leaked proposal to invest in schools is to be accompanied by proposals to allow teachers to use “reasonable force” against pupils, and the additional resources for the police include proposals to allow all officers to carry Tasers. There is no serious public policy discussion about precisely how much force grown adults should use against children, just as the problem with knife crime is not the police’s ability to pacify knife-wielding youths with Tasers. These plans are red meat for the Tory base, designed to distract from rather than solve the problems our society faces.

The political logic is obvious. In 2017, Theresa May lost the slim Tory majority she inherited from her predecessor in an election campaign that turned away from Brexit and towards the state of the country at home. Labor’s clear anti-austerity message resonated across the Brexit divide and paid electoral dividends for the party. Johnson is aiming to prevent such a turn taking place this time.

Yet the public will be skeptical that the same people who needlessly degraded public services are now prepared to invest in them. While Johnson is unconstrained by principle or the shackles of ideology, he leads a cabinet of the hard right of the Conservative party. For those who have dedicated a lifetime to hacking back the state and severing Britain’s ties with the European Union, it seems unlikely that they are on board with a project of investment in public services. But they are certainly committed to a no-deal exit that is an Atlanticist project rather than a unilateral one – and to the aggressive tax cuts that Johnson has promised. This is a government that intends to realign Britain to the US and is set to govern just like US Republicans – cut taxes first, then maintain spending to blow up the deficit before using that to justify far deeper spending cuts.

So why would the public believe what Johnson says? The real secret of populists, from Donald Trump to Matteo Salvini to Johnson, is the conflation of transgression with truthfulness. The willingness to engage in bigotry and violate hard-won social norms against racist, homophobic or misogynistic language convinces people that these politicians “speak their mind” and “say what they think”. Paradoxically, their lack of virtue confirms their veracity.

Their bigotry is the result of calculation rather than miscalculation – and the predictable howls of outrage from critics only serves to amplify the message. The upcoming election will turn on whether Johnson is found out for what he is: Trump with a thesaurus, whose real agenda of a Brexit for the elite is disguised behind the thin veneer of a few spending announcements that come after a desperate decade of the degradation of Britain at home and abroad.

 Tom Kibasi is director of the Institute for Public Policy Research. He writes in a personal capacity

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.

We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Mental Health Patients Detained In Hospital Wards For Decades



Mental health patients detained in hospital wards for up to 21 years

Guardian finds many people confined far from families, sometimes for decades

Patient in NHS secure unit
 Library image. One patient at Birmingham and Solihull mental health NHS foundation trust spent 7,914 days – more than 21 years – in one of the wards. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

A patient locked in a secure ward for more than 21 years is among hundreds of people with mental health problems being kept in what one MP has called “old-style asylums” in NHS hospitals, an investigation can reveal.

Keeping people in so-called “locked rehabilitation wards” has been condemned as “outdated and sometimes institutionalised care”, by the NHS watchdog, with many patients housed far from their homes. This is despite a 2017 report by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) that said the model of care had no place in a modern healthcare system.

Using freedom of information laws, the Guardian has found that:

  • At least 435 patients spent time in locked rehabilitation wards in 2018, up from 404 in 2015.
  • One patient at Birmingham and Solihull mental health NHS foundation trust spent 7,914 days – more than 21 years – in one of the wards.
  • The average length of stay in a locked unit at Sussex Partnership NHS foundation trust was 602 days, almost two years.

There is no set definition of a locked rehabilitation ward, but it generally means a unit where patients are unable to leave as and when they want. They started being used about 10 years ago, mainly provided by the private sector to treat people who were considered high risk to others, so with serious conditions such as psychosis.

But critics have condemned the approach “which has no place in modern Britain”, according to MPs. A report from the CQC in 2017 warned that the practice leaves already vulnerable patients feeling isolated and less likely to recover.

Rajesh Mohan, chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ rehabilitation psychiatry faculty said that a lack of clear definition of “locked rehabilitation” care means, there are no agreed quality standards and it’s hard to “say whether a person’s liberties are deprived”.

“If the principle of care is based on locking the doors, people cannot leave the building, then you cannot have voluntary patients at all there … It means restrictions are applied to everyone rather than there being a focus on recovery,” he said.

Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb said: “They are like old-style asylums that have no place in modern Britain. What we are doing is a fundamental breach of people’s human rights.

“It is a complete contradiction in terms: locked rehabilitation ward. Their [the CQC’s] conclusion was that many people in these wards don’t need to be there. That means that there are lots of people who are capable of living independent lives with support who are locked up.”

Mohan said that in the last 10 to 15 years more than a third of NHS rehabilitation services have been wiped out. “The need for these services has not gone away. People with lots of complex and enduring symptoms need rehabilitation treatment and the private sector stepped in to bridge this service gap, but people may become isolated in these units for long periods of time.”

He said he would not describe these services as old-style asylums but the problem is people end up in these units for too long as there is no step-down provided and no community services to support people leaving wards.

“People in rehabilitation units should be able to move on to less restrictive rehabilitation settings. But that will only happen if they have places to bedischarged to, such as supported accommodation with 24-hour supported community care. There will be some people whose illness and symptoms are very severe, but that does not mean they should be stuck in hospital for 21 years. There needs to be more focus on community rehabilitation teams and high quality supported housing.”

The Guardian found that 404 patients in NHS hospitals were in locked rehabilitation wards in 2015, rising to 435 in 2018. A freedom of information request sent to all mental health trusts resulted in 11 trusts saying they had such wards, compared with 32 who said they did not. Thirteen trusts did not respond in time.

Central and North West London NHS foundation trust had the highest number of patients, with 104 staying in secure wards in 2018. The longest stay of a patient was 2,914 days – six days shy of eight years.

The trust said it runs specialist rehabilitation services for people with “complex mental health problem” and are one of the largest providers because they cover a large local and neighbouring area.

”We’re very different from old style asylums; our facilities are hospitals, modern and bright … The majority of people stay between six and 18 months … There are a few people who need to stay longer (eg Home Office restriction orders), and we work to identify other options for them.”

Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS foundation trust had a patient stay for 7,914 days, more than 21 years. Another patient stayed for 6,174 days, almost 17 years.

They did not comment on these individual cases but said: “There remain a small number of patients within our locked rehabilitation wards in Solihull who have required long-term treatment in a hospital setting. There are currently no alternative settings in Solihull offering appropriate residential care for this group, who need specialist support. Cases are reviewed regularly.”

At Sussex partnership NHS foundation trust the average length of stay in a locked unit was 602 days, almost two years. The trust said: “Our priority is always to ensure that the people who need our specialist services receive the best possible care, at the right time and, crucially, in the right setting and that they remain in that setting only for as long as they need to.”

In 2017, a report by the CQC found that more than 3,500 patients in 248 mental health wards were kept locked-in, the majority in private mental health hospitals.

The report stated: “Our inspectors were concerned that some of these locked rehabilitation hospitals were in fact long stay wards that risk institutionalising patients, rather than a step on the road back to a more independent life in the person’s home community.

“We do not consider that this model of care has a place in today’s mental healthcare system.”

Paul Lelliott, deputy chief inspector of hospitals at the CQC, said: “These findings echo our own concerns highlighted last year that some people in mental health rehabilitation wards experience long stays in services, some situated a long way from the patient’s home. Rather than helping people get well these factors can increase their sense of institutionalisation and slow down recovery.

“Rehabilitation wards are an essential element of a comprehensive mental health service but they should live up to their name and be focused on helping people recover rather than being ‘long-stay’ wards in disguise. ”

An NHS England spokesperson said: “As the CQC make clear, ‘inpatient’ rehabilitation wards are a key part of good mental healthcare and while no one should stay any longer than necessary, in a tiny number of cases, it might remain the safest and most appropriate treatment setting for both the individual patient and wider community. Patient confidentiality of necessity means individual details must be kept private, but absent this specific information known to patients and their clinicians it behoves commentators not to jump to ill informed generalisations.”

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading and supporting our independent, investigative reporting than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford.

The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one edits our editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important as it enables us to give a voice to those less heard, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes directly into funding our journalism. This support enables us to keep working as we do – but we must maintain and build on it for every year to come. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Mindculture's Blog

Rising like a blooming lotus through the mud

Diary of a Gay Dad. I am a full time dad to five young children.

People family relationships children cooking jam making and being a gay dad

المعلومات في جميع المجلات

هذا الموقع يمكنه الكلام في ما يدور في العالم

The Common Sense Theologian

Theology, Politics, Life, Education, Family, Home, Kids, Marriage, Outdoors

India Travel BLog

A Blog about Indian Tourism

Danny's wor(l)d

have a great read here!!

%d bloggers like this: