I'm sorry about the rather scatalogical language, but for me this is the best metaphor. Something large and unpleasant that drops from above.
It is fair to say that the HSCB is a complex piece of legislation, that is not well understood by people. Even those whose job is to scrutinise legislation struggle. My historical mind turns to a parallel which is the Schleswig-Holstein question, of which Lord Palmerston said:
"There are only three people who understand the Schleswig-Holstein question: one is Prince Albert, who is dead, the second is a German Professor, who has gone mad, and the third is me and I've forgotten the answer"
The Bill will be returning to the commons, and will be debated. Over a 1,000 amendments have been tabled. Many of these are semantic alterations, but some are at the behest of the NHS Future Forum. This is a group of people, under the chairmanship of Steve Field, who have been asked to advise on the HSCB and other issues by the Government. They are described in the media as 'Independent', but they are hand picked by the Secretary of State. That is not independence.
They might regard themselves as giving genuine advice to the Government to mitigate some inconsistencies on the Bill.
I don't, however, see their role as that. I see what they have done is a sanitation job, a sugar coating of Lansley's complex turd.
They might regard what they have done to be a good job. I regret I cannot.
A sugar-coated turd may be less unpleasant, superficially.
But a turd is still a turd.
3 comments:
Beveridge wanterd a universal Health insurance system not a nationalised, unionised, corrupt and inefficient killing machine(Stafford and at least six others).
There is nothing in the NHS worth saving the service is shit shut it down and replace it with a state backed insurance company and give patients to take to competing non state owned providers of care.
Anonymous conveniently forgets that Stafford was a foundation trust - the autonomous competing unit started by Labour that was meant to be the building block towards privatisation. Foundation Trusts are judged on finances first, patient care second, forget quality because WHAT CAN'T BE MEASURED IS NOT IMPORTANT in our brave new business world. Now all hospitals are required to be Foundation Trust - to get there the finances have to be good, so cuts are made to the frontline. Full competing non-state owned companies will go down that route just a bit further
Ever wondered how these top managers and executives in the big private companies get their bonuses? By delivering high profits on the balance sheet.
Know how they often do it? By cutting the workforce, often getting rid of experienced staff and replacing them with cheaper, less qualified staff. By selling off the buildings and leasing them back. By buying everything at the cheapest price possible, irrespective of the source or quality.
Translate that into the NHS and see the results.
Not enough nurses (and often doctors) on the wards and most of those unqualified assistants. Nurse Practitioners instead of Doctors.
Balance sheets imploding, as seen in the recent private care homes debacle, because they sold off all their buildings and sucked so much money from the business that the smallest downturn in profits made them incapable of paying their bills. It's called asset stripping. That is what Lansley and his friends will do, given the chance.
We will start to see a lot more stories like substandard breast implants, and substandard hip replacements.
The private companies who are drooling at the prospect of the new arrangements don't care a damn for the NHS or the patients who use it. When they have squeezed all the profit from it they will walk away, leaving us to pick up the pieces. And by that time Lansley will have walked away too; straight to his lucrative directorships in the very companies he is listening to now.
Politicians are here today and gone tomorrow, but the damage that they do is often out of all proportion to their importance. What a useless bunch of tossers they are.
Post a Comment