Where there is no leadership, the people perish: Proverbs 29:18
I have been reflecting on leadership tonight.
What makes a great leader? Someone who inspires those who are happy to be led. One who listens to the concerns, aspirations and hopes of supporters. One who sees the right way forward. Someone who takes a moral stance, without considering their own position.
There are other types of leader. Those who lead from the front and use all their authority to change events by engaging with those whom they disagree with, and seek to adjust events by subtle co-operation. They modify the emotions of their followers, seeking to channel their views through reasoned and principled argument.
There is another kind of leader. One who instinctively knows they are right, and will brook no argument. One who seeks counsel only from those who agree, and dismisses the opposition by ignoring them.
These are the three types of leader evident today in the news about the Health Bill.
They all lead. They all think they are right.
I am happy to support only one of them, the first one. The second will sit on the fence until the iron enters his soul, and the third is the first lemming off the cliff. Leader, fence-sitter, lemming.
Any suggestions?
12 comments:
An interesting sermon, Reverend JD., but I wonder in which Bible you found this translation? The King James version is "Where there is no vision, the people perish". And it is vision that most of the so-called leaders seem to lack.
If you look at the most successful PMs from the last 100 years, the list would be (whatever you might think of their policies) Churchill, Atlee, Thatcher and Blair. And they were all third category leaders. Particularly Atlee who, though quietly spoken and not of the media age, did not brook opposition. He drove the NHS legislation through against the wishes of the whole medical establishment. The fact that reactionary doctors are now as always opposing change suggests that the change is both necessary and overdue. I do sympathise with you JD becuase you are clearly a decent man...but I'm afraid that, as someone said before, you are a medical Boxer. The NHS of 1948 is not fit for purpose for 2012. Change is essential. Your posts would be more credible if you occasionally indulged in some qualitative analysis of the changes rather than these sequential and increasingly mawkish rants
Thank You anon. Change is ongoing and continuous, and not opposed, if reasoned and necessary. The problem is change that is designed with a more sinister motive (that of fragmentation and privatisation) and that is the elephant in the room.
As for successful leaders, it does depend on your definition. Enoch Powell stated that all political careers end in failure. Both Blair and Thatcher ended up being eased out of their premiership.
And there was broad support for many aspects of the NHS Bill from many in the medical profession in 1946-8. The Conservatives opposed it bitterly at the time (including the sainted Churchill). The situation is more nuanced than many think.
"change is essential"
Possibly, but not if it is too drastic.
If you wanted to change your appearance you might get a new haircut or have your teeth capped. You don't cut your bloody head off.
"change is essential" - yes, but is it too much to ask for the right sort of change, change based on evidence rather than simply pandering to the demands of corporate lobbyists?
Maybe Dave is right, while the general public and almost all health professionals are wrong, but if he is his reasons for being right are the best kept secret in town (once you get beyond the empty rhetoric and political posturing)
Of FFS, please don't start doing the quoting from the Bible thing to make a point. It also says..
"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colossians 3:22)
...picking and choosing... arrgh!!
Also, misquoting from the Bible to make a point is never advisable!
Thought I'd try a quote instead of a picture.
I'll go back to pictures (sorry SFD)
I'm anon from 9.57
_____________________
Enoch Powell was right about political lives ending in failure. Attlee was kicked out by the country, Thatcher and Blair by their own parties, and Churchill finally, having held on far too long, by bad health. All four were, nonetheless, powerful and successful leaders. And Churchill was no saint, as those at Gallipoli and Sydney Street would tell you.
But, yet again, JD you fall back on meaningless generalisation.
Change is ongoing and continuous, and not opposed, if reasoned and necessary. The problem is change that is designed with a more sinister motive (that of fragmentation and privatisation) and that is the elephant in the room.
Why don't you discuss the details of the bill rather than going on and on and on...about nebulous political priciples?
You say: Change is ongoing and continuous, and not opposed, if reasoned and necessary.
That, to the extent that it is comprehensible, is, if I may use a technichal phrase, bollocks. All change is opposed by (small 'c') conservatives like you and the rest of the medical profession. You are never prepaed to entertain new ideas that threaten the status quo. Doctors opposed the recognition of surgeons. They opposed the suggestion of women going into medical school. They opposed the establishment of family planning clinics. The BMA opposed the introduction of the NHS. The list is endless.
What is ipso facto "sinister" about privatisation? Would you re-nationalise British Telecom? Would you nationalise Tesco? Your problem is your doctrinal rabid hatred of anything that is not socialist. If the private sector could run the NHS better than the government, then it should be allowed to. Do you think Tesco could have been sold a multi-billion pound IT dummy?
I'm all for efficiency, entrepreneurial activity and dynamism. Indeed I am a part in my own practice, which is a self-employed private business. Doctors have been remarkably versatile and forward thinking, and the conservatism you describe I do not recognise.
My own world view is that a universal health service paid for out of taxes and based on necessity for treatment is what I want to see. This is what the new Bill destroys.
My own world view is that a universal health service paid for out of taxes and based on necessity for treatment is what I want to see. This is what the new Bill destroys.
_________________
You keep saying this. But HOW does it destroy it?
The most important thing is universal availability of a decent standard of medical care for all UK citizens. If your practice works well as a self-employed privatge business, why should the whole NHS not use that model? Isn't that what this is all about? And, please note from the bottom of the article you quoted:
Older respondents tended to be firmer in their opposition. Young voters aged between 18 and 24 actually backed going ahead with the reforms by 46% to 39%. Those over 65 want the government to abandon the legislation by 56% to 29%.
Time for the old farts to take a step back. The youth of this country seem to want the new bill.
Anon,
Do you actually read what JD writes? He and others have been outlining in some detail, just exactly what is wrong with this bill, if you took the bother to read it.
Post a Comment