When a 'treasure' is also a shame

I was in Vietnam during the London Olympics and missed much of the opening ceremony, including the, subsequently much talked about, praise-piece for the NHS.  I haven't missed, over the years the ill-informed and ignorant spew of comments from people who all stand-up and say what a wonderful service is the NHS!

Where were these people earlier this week?  Where were the unions - the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) and the British Medical Association (BMA)?  Why weren't these organizations out there, demanding the names of their members that had so patently and regularly failed in their basic duties - not just as so-called health professionals but as human beings?

Where too were the police?  They can find the time to undertake a never-ending investigation of hacking.  They can release all sorts of allegations about Jimmy Saville and presume guilt.  They can conspire in the unseating of a senior government member.  However, investigate abuse after abuse?  Make arrests?  Leak names of the 'guilty'.  No, they can't be bothered to investigate their 'colleagues' in the emergency services.

I am, of course, referring to the scandal at Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust.

I took the opportunity to print-out the Executive Summary (kudos to HMSO on their commitment to transparency!).  This document is 125 pages long and page after page one finds a litany of facts that shame the UK.

One of the first reactions of the political parties was to close ranks and focus on 'the way forward' and emote by expressing  wordy sympathy for the families of the victims.

While I am sure that the Conservatives would not want to stir the pot too much in case any early skeletons come tumbling out of its historical closets, I have no such inhibitions.

The bulk of these abuses happened while Labour was in power.  They happened while Labour was shoveling obscene amounts of taxpayer money into the NHS.  They happened while those 'healthcare professionals' regularly received real-term increases in incomes and membership.

Did these same professionals have their noses so far into the trough that they couldn't see what was happening?  I don't think so.  I think they just didn't care.

I have written here many times before, that in my view and based on experience around the world, the NHS is by no means a 'treasure'.  It is a shaming institution for the UK.  Over paid, over funded and over politicised.  Like an old relative with a drink problem, everyone knows he/she needs to be spoken to but rather than doing the right thing, we keep on slipping the old reprobate extra grog! 

The first inquiry, which reported in February 2010 reported.

• Patients were left in excrement in soiled bed clothes for lengthy periods;
• Assistance was not provided with feeding for patients who could not eat without help;
• Water was left out of reach;
• In spite of persistent requests for help, patients were not assisted in their toileting;
• Wards and toilet facilities were left in a filthy condition;
• Privacy and dignity, even in death, were denied;
• Triage in A&E was undertaken by untrained staff;
• Staff treated patients and those close to them with what appeared to be callous indifference.

The first inquiry report was published on 24 February 2010. It contained damning criticism
of the care provided by the Trust, drawing out a number of conclusions, including:

• There was a lack of basic care across a number of wards and departments at the Trust;
• the culture at the Trust was not conducive to providing good care for patients or providing a supportive working environment for staff; there was an atmosphere of fear of adverse repercussions; a high priority was placed on the achievement of targets; 
• the consultant body largely dissociated itself from management; 
• there was low morale amongst staff;
• there was a lack of openness and an acceptance of poor standards;
• Management thinking during the period under review was dominated by financial pressures and achieving FT status, to the detriment of quality of care;
• There was a management failure to remedy the deficiencies in staff and governance that had existed for a long time, including an absence of effective clinical governance;
• There was a lack of urgency in the Board’s approach to some problems, such as those in governance;
• Statistics and reports were preferred to patient experience data, with a focus on systems, not outcomes;
• There was a lack of internal and external transparency regarding the problems that existed
  at the Trust.

So what must be done?

Well, criminal charges for one and sackings for the second thing.  The Police must review the evidence that has been so painstakingly gathered (why they have not already done so, is maybe not a mystery!) and they must make arrests.  Dawn raids, arresting people in their jobs, anything that shows these people to the world for the shameless and self-serving animals that they are.  Harsh words?  Think about it for a moment - people were entrusted to their care and then they didn't just die, they suffered and then died.  The 'caring' service.  Do you think?

Nurses, Doctors, 'managers' and executives need to face criminal charges for dereliction of duty and failure to provide care.  These people need to be named and shamed and put in the dock.

Medical folks and social workers talk about people needing 'closure' - that was the term used by Andy Burnham when talking about the Hillsborough disaster - the families of Liverpool fans needing closure.  So now, how about some closure for the Mid Staffs victims?  How about senior heads rolling?  Maybe start with Andy Burnham, who was the Health Minister in charge of the NHS, during part of the period?.

Those members of the various Health Authorities must all lose their positions.  If they are still employed by the government, in any form, they must be fired.  Simple.  Their current employers needn't worry about employment tribunals.  Having these heartless people, named and shamed, will be worthwhile.

They MUST lose the honours that were bestowed!  If Fred Goodwin can lose his knighthood, why not people like Sir David Nicholson - now head of the NHS, and, in 2005/6 ultimate head of Stafford Hospital.  Hundreds of people died and suffered on his watch.  That he has no sense of decency is apparent but that shouldn't stop the Honours Forfeiture Committee being called into action!

Also, take the maximum possible action on their pensions - whatever it is, don't be nice, be mean, don't err on the generous side, punish them.

Then of course, there are all of those Labour politicians.  Those sanctimonious fools who believe that money is the solution to all problems, so long as it is other people's money.  Those same people who oppose any reform that looks to improve and only allows surface level reform that entrenches vested union/provider interests at the expense of consumers/patients and taxpayers.

Let's have a debate on this but turn this into a debate on the future of the NHS.  Cameron should set the attack dogs free so that they can tear into the hypocrites that still sit on Labour's front bench.  Those that still say the NHS is safe in their hands - in a way they are right, the organization is safe in their hands but the patients and their families that use it, aren't!

The real answer is to move away from the outdated model and adopt something similar to that which operates in other countries - a mix of public and private - but who will have the courage to do this?  This report should be the most potent weapon in the NHS reform arsenal but instead it will be buried and the culprits will go free and enjoy their knighthoods and gold-plated pensions, while vulnerable people continue to suffer and die while receiving treatment that is 'the envy of the world'.

On reflection, I am glad I missed that Olympics opening!
  

Splitting the Coalition

Recently the Coalition government looked back on the first 2 1/2 years of the 5 year parliament and just about broke their own arms patting each other on the back.

On Tuesday, this same government will push forward with the 2nd reading of legislation to re-define marriage and allow homosexuals to 'marry'.  So what?  you may ask.  Well, where is the mandate for this?  It wasn't in the Conservative manifesto.  It wasn't in the Coalition Agreement, either.  The latter document, which I quote here stated:

 The deficit reduction programme takes precedence over any of the other measures in this agreement, and the speed of implementation of any measures that have a cost to the public finances will depend on decisions to be made in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

When you look at the way the deficit reduction programme is working out, you might say, why, when the government borrowings are increasing, is the government not focused on the economy?  Does anyone really think that allowing homosexuals to 'marry' will reduce the deficit?  And please don't prattle on about any kind of civil liberties deficit - you know what I mean.





The Coalition Agreement also said:

We will also ensure that provision is made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to the coalition agreement.

This was a long standing 'commitment' from the Conservatives to support, what they called the 'traditional marriage'.  Needless to say, the one promise about marriage, that they did make, they don't keep and then they introduce ones that they never made and for which they can categorically be said to have absolutely no mandate.  Indeed, 3 days before the 2010 election, David Cameron is reported (Coalition for Marriage) as to have categorically said that there were no plans to redefine the definition of marriage.  It is customary to hold politicians in such low regard that as a matter of nature, we tend to expect them to lie rather than tell the truth, but usually they have the decency to cover this in 'politico-speak' but here Cameron gave an unequivocal answer.  So why the change?

I think that given the Lib Dems, shameless and petty and spiteful rejection of the Boundary Changes legislation, the Conservatives should encourage all of their MPs to vote down this legislation, simply in retaliation.  I would like to think that they would actually vote this down on the dubious merits of the bill and the inherent inequalities that this bill brings as well as the inevitable intrusion into Church affairs but even among Tories, pandering to vocal minorities still occurs, so however you justify it, have the courage to do the right thing and vote it down.

At some point, the Coalition has to start moving apart so that by the time the next election comes, in May 2015, they can be seen to be the separate political parties that they are.  So the Conservatives should follow the Lib Dems lead.  The latter has started to move away from the Coalition, the Conservatives should do the same.

In/Out Referendum - Now what?

So, David Cameron has fired the starting pistol on an In/Out Referendum.  He has indicated that he wants to re-negotiate the settlement that the UK has with the EU and so long as the UK gets want it wants, he will whole-heartedly work for a Yes/In vote.

I smell quantities of rats!

Firstly, the referendum is dependent on the Conservatives winning the next election.  The Lib Dems are dead-set against holding an In/Out Referendum.  Yes, I know that just a few years ago, as in just before the last election, Nick Clegg, their leader, was all for one but hey, this is politics!  We can't say what is the position of the Labour Party as it doesn't know - saying one thing one minute and the opposite the next.  I suspect that my dog may be socialist as she always pulls to the left but she too seems undecided.

Secondly, and most importantly what are we going to ask for?  What powers will we be seeking to have repatriated?  Most importantly, will these be known in advance of the 2015 General Election?  That is, in order to weigh the value of the Conservative position, we need to know what they will be re-negotiating.  For example, if they only wanted to re-negotiate the Euro arrest warrant, this probably wouldn't persuade me that the referendum had any merit.  Talking about the repeal of the Working Time Directive?  Now I am starting to get interested.  Did the Tories say that they are also going to tackle a whole raft of, named,  anti-business EU laws, regulations and directives repealed?  Okay, now I see you are getting serious and the In/Out referendum might actually mean something.  Keep filling out the subjects and I will start to see the breadth and depth of what the referendum might mean.

Thirdly, and linked to the above, will we have lines in the sand published in advanced?  I believe this is critical as it will stimulate this very important debate and will force the other political parties to say whee they stand.  For example, if the Conservatives say they will require that the Working Time Directive is repealed, then they can say why it should be and, will force the Labour Party  and Lib Dems to say why it shouldn't be.
 
Fourthly, and others have mentioned this, who will lead the Out campaign?  The euro-sceptics and those who want Out anyway and don't consider that any re-negotiation will satisfy them, need to come together very soon and coalesce around a respected leader.  The individual doesn't have to be UKIP or Conservative or Labour etc.  But a campaign leader does need to be appointed.  My vote would go for David Davis.

Fifth, what can we expect of that paragon of balanced reporting - the BBC?  That they are Europhile has always been very apparent, so how to get balance?  Maybe, we could just have Parliament pass a quick enabling law, prohibiting the BBC from reporting on anything about the debate or the European Commission?  OK, so that is extreme but maybe we could oblige them to put a warning strap across all of their stories?  You know, the one that always appears saying - Warning contains flash photography.  How about Warning contains pro-EU bias?

Sixth, how about we get the economic and trade arguments out of the way, at the start.  Put simply, the UK needs to continue to trade with our current EU partners now, during the debate and after any referendum.  Equally, those same partners need to continue to trade with the UK.  None of these economies can simply walk away from such large trading partners.  Any suggestion that the opposite is true is simply ignorant scare-mongering and puerile nonsense. 

Seventh, one of the major reforms that is needed is the establishment of democracy within the EU institutions.  At the outset, that means the abolition of the EU Commission - completely - and all of its attendant institutions which seek to rule without any democratic mandate.

No renegotiation can be seen as successful if the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy remain.  That must be a given.  These restrictive policies, must go.  Similarly, no acceptance of anything that doesn't require that audited accounts are published each year.

Of course any EU level budget can only, repeat only change, up or down, in line with the collective GDP position of the member states.  So if overall EU GDP grows by 0.5% so the budget can grow by that, if it contracts by the same amount, then the spending /budget must be reduced by the same amount.

All new members can only be accepted, if they are cash neutral as regards contributions.  They are neither a net contributor nor a net receiver of funds.

Within a reasonable time frame - ten years or at least not more than fifteen years, all contributors are net zero.
  
Finally and very importantly, any powers that are returned and so are part of the 'success' which prompts a Yes/In vote, must then remain with the UK Parliament and can never be returned to the EU without the express authority of the UK people - that is they have to have specifically voted for it not voted for a party that then decides to undo what has been 'won'.  We wouldn't want any kind of back-sliding or back-room deals such as - yes we will allow that power back and then in two years time, when Brussels issues a new directive, the UK accepts it and we are back to status quo ante.    

As I said at the outset, I smell rats.  I suspect that the Tory leadership consider this a good each-way bet.  If they lose the election, then they can say to their Euro-sceptic MPs - See, people just aren't interested!  If they win the election, then they can re-negotiate on unimportant issues - we managed to rescue the bent banana - and then present such 'victories' as meaningful and promote a vote for In, saying at the same time, this must close the issue, once and for all!

This one is a long way from settled.  Who said the 'devil is in the detail'?

BBC Madness

If you have read my blog before you will be aware of my concerns about the biased BBC and the iniquitous TV Tax - also called the license fee.

However, even the most (blinkered) ardent supporter of the BBC must have been taken aback and stared with incredulity at the claim that in the past two years the BBC contributed more than £8 billion to the UK economy!

How did it do this?  Well it is called the 'multiplier effect'  This says that for every pound that is spent it generates economic activity of twice it's value.  In the case of the BBC the premise is that when it buys a TV camera for example, the money it pays, goes to generate salaries for the makers of the camera and their workers etc., and these then buy food which generates economic impact for the makers and transporters of food, etc.  and on and on it goes.

This is fatuous nonsense and the fuzziest of fuzzy maths.  If we take the BBC's view to it's logical extension, all global activity can be traced back to the spending that the 'beeb' is making.

Is it any wonder that the BBC push socialist policies, which posit that spending can occur without  actually having the money to pay for them?  According to BBC economic theory, all it takes is £1 and then you double-up and double-up and double-up until that fancy new BBC News Centre or Newscaster's salary has been paid for.  You can do the same with hospitals!  Need to finance a Trans-Gender outreach worker? - all you need is to spend a pound and in no time the funding is there.

In case you think I am making this up.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/entertainment-arts-21041587

The report said: "The effect of initial BBC spending is 'multiplied' as it ripples through the economy from region to region and sector to sector (and to the employees of those sectors). This is known as the 'multiplier effect'."
The BBC's chief economic and policy adviser Najma Rajah explained: "The basic premise is that when the BBC spends a pound, the impact of that pound is 'multiplied' as that pound spent by the BBC creates value elsewhere in the economy.
"So, for example, if the BBC were to buy a camera from a supplier in Manchester, the camera supplier would receive some money in return for the camera.
"The camera company would then use the income generated from the sale of the camera to pay their suppliers for the components that went into the camera and to also pay their employees and so on."
Rajah added: "A really good example of how this multiplier effect works is when the BBC commissions a programme that is made by an independent television production.
"The programme might be filmed in Scotland using local runners, electricians, make-up artists etc. who are paid and then will spend their wages in Scotland to the benefit of the Scottish economy."

 So there you have it (are you paying attention Mr Salmond?) another series or two of Monarch of the Glen and a couple from Rab C Nesbitt and Scotland's economic future is secure - maybe Salmond is right - they don't need the oil industry!

 Now ardent supporter, you might ask yourself why the BBC needs to have it's own chief economic and policy adviser?  Why doesn't it spend less on justifying it's own existence and maybe more on original programming?


Repeal the TV Tax now!

Rulers and the ruled

If you had any doubts about the madness that is infecting the UK, today, this week's events in Parliament should provide clarity.

At the start of the week, the Labour party (joined by some Lib Dem malcontents)  opposed the Coalition's proposal to limit welfare benefit handout increases to 1% over the next three years.  Their opposition wasn't because they thought that benefits should be progressively cut in the same period, by say something like 10% per year. 

Oh no!  The opposition was that they felt this would hurt the poor and hard-working families. 

For those unfamiliar with the stupidities of the UK welfare system, the Socialists have developed and honed a process where the government impoverishes you by taking so much in taxes and National Insurance (Social Security) and then let's you apply to get some of your own money back as tax credits and other welfare handouts!   

OK, so you might expect a Conservative-led Coalition to end this farce and leave money in the pockets of those that have earned it but that would be expecting too much.  Two and a half years into a five year Parliament and nary a sign that common sense will surface.

Why?  Well consider the following.

The week has ended with MPs suggesting that they should receive an average 32% increase in salary.  There is no decimal point missing!  You read it correctly - thirty two percent.

Consider this.  The average salary in the UK is £26,500.  Currently MPs receive a salary of more than £65,700 or 2 1/2 times the average.  Now Conservatives want to take that to £96,740, the Lib Dems to £78,361 and Labour to £77,322. 

Oh, and on top of their generous salary, they receive expenses to cover travel, offices and assistant's salaries, etc. 

Is it any wonder that the finances of the UK government are in such an appalling state, when the economic incompetents that rule us have only one concern - their own pocket? 

Many of these are the same MPs who had their greedy snouts so far into the trough that they must have been gagging on the expenses that they were fiddling.  These are also the same MPs who are now pushing to muzzle a free press (including newspapers that exposed the MP expenses fiddling) - Would any writer ever dare to come up with such an unbelievable story-line?

And yes, you probably guessed it, they knew, when they put themselves forward for election, what the salary was, that was on offer.  Ask yourself this, what chance of getting an increase would you have if, today, you went to your boss and said, I know we agreed the starting salary 2 1/2 years ago but now I want a 32% increase.

Any MP that votes in favour or even has the audacity to speak in favour of getting such an increase should have the courage to force an immediate by-election and put the matter, this single issue, to the public - the people who vote him/her into Parliament - and, just as importantly, those taxpayers that pay these high wages. 

If these greedy, stupid, hypocritical and mendacious people can't survive on £65K then they should quit and go and find another job that appropriately rewards the talents and skills that they (alone) think they have!  They should do it, today!

I do accept that many of  those  called for the resignation or firing of Stephen Hester indicated that they could do his job for a lot less than his £1 million pay packet.  Of course that is largely complete twaddle.  MPs though?  They can be easily replaced - it isn't as if the job requires any particular skills - although lying, cheating and thieving doesn't come easy to everyone - just consider the backgrounds and experience of the shower currently sitting in Westminster - how are they more qualified than anyone else?  How many of them have ever held down a real job or managed a business or department or any kind of budget? 

This ruling elite is on a tax-payer funded gravy train , along with their mates in Euro-lalaland and just about  all of them are at 'it' and serving only their own financial interests.

This is what the UK has come to!




 

Gay Bishops

Now that the Church of England has advised that it will allow homosexuals to become bishops, as long as they are celibate.  Where can we expect this to lead?

As a Roman Catholic, I hesitate to wander onto the Anglican patch and comment but.........

And yes, I realize that this will cause all of the stories of the failings of individual RC priests who have been unmasked as paedophiles to be thrown-up as evidence of 'pots and kettles'.  Personally, I don't think that the incidence of paedophile  priests is higher than in the general population.  I think, as a RC, that the most worrying issue (apart from the obvious breach of trust and the actual crimes committed against the children) was the action of some bishops in seeking to cover-up and  dodge the issue.

Anyway, so to the CofE. 

This has been on my mind for a few weeks and the latest announcement brings this forward.  What will be the CofE position on the marriage of homosexual vicars and now, homosexual bishops?  Will these be sanctioned and/or performed on holy ground? Who will verify celibacy, and how?  CCTV in the Bishop's bedroom?

How does the CofE, in its small minded and highly parochial desire to be 'in' with the latest fashion, think that its approach will go down with the wider Anglican community?  Do these foolish people think that the Anglicans in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa will simply accept this?  Just like they accepted the homosexual Episcopalian American bishop?

Say what you like about the Roman Catholic church, our Holy Father doesn't pander to special interest groups and rush to follow the latest social trends.  Yes, that may seem to make us 'old fashioned' or, to some 'reactionary' but better the certainty of that, than the moral decay that the CofE chases in following the latest mores. 

2013 Resolutions

At this time of year, people resolve to do or not do, certain things.  Here are my non-personal ones.

1. I will try not to wonder why a Conservative-led government allows itself to receive all of the opprobrium being heaped upon it for making austerity cuts, when it isn't actually reducing Public Expenditure. 
2. I will also try to accept that the Lib-Dem 'tail' wagging the Tory 'dog' is a good thing for the UK and democracy.
3. I will await the answer to my question on who actually wants homosexuals to have a so called marriage and what this 'ceremony' confers that is different from what homosexuals already have.
4. I shall eagerly hope that Arsenal find where Ivan has hidden the finances and then spend those  to bolster their defence and mid-field with 'take-charge' players who can dominate.  At the same time, I await the appointment of Jack Wilshere as club captain.
5. The much-anticipated EU speech, by David Cameron will surely allow me to rest easy that the UK will finally be given the option of an In/Out referendum and I won't need to bang-on about this.  Do you think?
6.  What to say about Scotland?  I do resolve to offer the hope that the politicians will provide its people with a balanced argument relative to the subject of independence.  With wily Alex there though, I somehow already doubt my hope will be responded to.  
7. Green taxes - I will continue to highlight these iniquitous taxes that add to the burden for people, increase so called fuel poverty and signally fail to reduce so called greenhouse gases. 

OK, the truth!  I will break #1 very soon (sub-consciously, I have probably already done so!).  #2 - isn't going to happen!  #3 - I won't hold my breath.  #4 This is a regular resolution or is it hope?  #5 Can but hope.  #6 When a nation has a chip on it's shoulder, balance is maybe too much to wish for.  #7 Reading Hiding the Decline by A.W. Montford to be better prepared for the 'green' liars and their allies at the biased BBC.

Enjoy 2013 and keep on thinking Right!!