Should you ever be stuck in a snow drift, climate change allowing, with a BBC journalist and he breaks out the ‘Travel Scrabble’ just check all the tiles are there…..I suspect it may be missing the B’s, R’s, O’s, U’s, A’s and L’s.
The Government today announced changes to the NHS to prevent any more scandals as happened at Stafford Hospital under the Labour government when up to 1,200 patients died because of lack of care.
Listening today to the BBC you would hear the dates of this tragedy…but once again no mention of the political Party which ran that NHS service at the time.
I heard no mention of Labour in relation to responsibility for the tragedy at all. The BBC were quite happy to report Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, attacking the government proposals today as not enough to prevent a reoccurrence of Stafford…
“We will never get the right culture on our wards if they are understaffed and overstretched,” Mr Burnham said
….but not an inkling of the irony of such a stance when it was his own Labour government’s policies which led to the deaths of all these patients that are having to be changed.
Listening to the BBC you would almost get the impression that it was the Coalition government that was responsible.
Just for comparison compare the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in 2009 when a similar number of people were killed….2/3rds of whom were militants.
The BBC still, 4 years on, tags the death toll onto the bottom of many reports about Israel….and makes sure we know Israel’s savage and oppressive army was responsible.
Contrast with how they report the deaths at Stafford Hospital and where the blame is cast…..who is ‘framed’ for the deaths…and it’s not the government of the day…the Labour Party.
The BBC are trying hard to rescue their fellow statists in the NHS from the raging flames on this one. Clearly not holding Labour or anyone in the NHS to account is a key part of the rescue plan. The second part is to blame the whole thing on too few staff and not enough money as per usual. In the BBC view if we spent EVEN MORE money on the NHS all would be well. At this rate it would be cheaper for us to take out BUPA subscriptions.
It was interesting yesterday on the Daily Politics when Digby Jones was strongly and correctly advocating the need for sackings for sub standard performance and for David Nicholson to face a court of law, Jo Coburn , who is by no means the most biased of BBC presenters, was wincing. The public sector doesn’t do sackings or accountability , one of the reasons why the tax payer gets so poor value for money of course.
But the BBC will eventually turn the tide of public opinion on this to the root cause being lack of funding, owing to their control of the news and current affairs agenda in the country. The Tories will become fearful of another BBC assault , which we all know will come regardless, and back off from the root and branch reform that is needed across the whole public sector. I didn’t watch the BBC programme on the NHS last night because I thought it would just be more statist propaganda. Please let me know if I was wrong.
Once again the BBC will demonstrate to anyone who cares to look that the real power in this country lies with them not the government. The BBC has killed off democracy in Britain and now rules unchallenged.
The cost per head of population for the NHS is nearly £2000:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-02-15a.40405.h
Check on the BUPA website for a quote – it would be cheaper now.
The increase in the cost of the NHS over the last twenty years is just staggering!
Have a look at any NHS Trust plan of its management and you`ll see why.
And the Tories -with their Commissioning Boards etc-are just about to make it worse.
Last time I looked there were Climate Change Carbon Capture Champions, and all manner of UNISON diversity secondments for ECHR, Investors in Paper Co-ordinators…all of who seem to get their jobs without any reference to any process I`VE ever seen-not even on the wilder shores of the Guardians Wednesday pages.
That`s where your money`s going…time to call a halt eh?
I’m no apologist for the NHS, but it’s not not really a valid comparison. There are lots of things the NHS does that private suppliers don’t have to, for example A&E and GP services.
Also the NHS has provide services to everyone, whatever their age/condition, whereas private insurers adjust their charges according to age and medical history and can exclude things that they don’t see as economic from their cover.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the NHS necessarily provides good value for money or that I support the UK’s model for public healthcare provision (I don’t). I’m just making a comment about that particular comparison.
Anyway, I’m well off topic for a site about the BBC so I’ll stop here.
Valid point winston,But the NHS,wich may have been a force for good once, is past its sell-by date.
But that debate (like many others) can not be had all he time BBC are alowed to set the terms through their dominance of the puplic arena
Winston,
As a Dutch national let me give you a comparison:
It costs me 150 euro per month to insure my wife, baby and me. The hospitals are new and modern, the ambulances like wise, the waiting times are minimal and each hospital has an A&E unit.
The GP’s are excellent and you do not have to call days in advance for appointment.
I always wonder when people defend the NHS and claim that it is the best in the world (I know you have not made that claim) yet fail to explain why no other country has followed this model…strange indeed!
Very interesting.
It amazes me how little interest commentators show in the systems adopted by comparable countries.
Do you have to pay a nominal charge when you see your GP/A&E etc?
“Once again the BBC will demonstrate to anyone who cares to look that the real power in this country lies with them not the government”.
Yes indeed. Tyrannical governments have traditionally used the media as a means of controlling information in their own interest. We are currently witnessing a reversal of this position: a weak government led by a spineless PM, and the servant has become the master.
Interesting the difference between trad media and t’internet.
Almost all the former, lead by the BBC, are running Labour press releases near unchallenged.
Meanwhile, on twitter or FaceBook, when these appear as complementing feeds, they, The NHS, Burnham & Labour are being torn new ones.
But, like the Borg, they have learned, and are adapting.
Even on interactive media, pulling a BBC and opting for bovine silence can be effective. File, forget… And let the fires rage and burn out.
Sometimes they make the mistake of posting on The Editors, but nothing a 70% House Rule referral ’til an early closing can’t sort.
A few, like the Graun’s Michael White, have not got the memo or if so grasped it.
They snap back, and when pwned keep digging until a colleague tells them to use an ad hom to accuse a questioner of bad faith, and huff off in a hissy fit.
One day the public will garner more information from a PC screen than a broadcast-enabled TV monitor, and if not brain dead compare what they are served via broadcast vs. what they can choose free, unfiltered, online.
My teens are now getting interested in more than anime porn and Epic wipeouts on YouTube. They have not watched the TV in months (hence my suggesting we can the DD on TVL & Sky met no argument). They are ‘informed’ by the web, and smart enough to surf across a variety of sources before coming to a conclusion. Single, establishment sources of information or education are treated as tainted.
Then the BBC is dead in the water.
I hope that you are right and the day comes soon when the BBC no longer has control of the news and current affairs agenda. But be watchful that they don’t try and grab control of ‘new media’ when Labour are next in power.
I am constantly amazed how the same events can lead people to such diverse conclusions. If the BBC was willing to share the wide range of views that exist in the UK on almost all topics without favouring any particular one themselves they would be doing what they are paid to do. But we know that they never will.
.
The NHS must be in a dreadful state when that bloke from the CQC is allowed to speak for it.
If that is the level of management and oversight in the NHS-and it clearly is-then no wonder Furness, mid-Staffs and all those other scandals to come are happening.
The CQC bloke sounded like Paul Masons butler….when 1200 dead people “flag up a flawed model”…we are truly in Beria, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Chubby territory!
Come back Dame/Lady/Baroness/Queen Cynthia Bower…or at least give us LinLin Homer(doh!).
Even Humphrys woke up to that one with the CQC Channeller…so at least he`s earned his earwax c/o Bupa!
In the car this afternoon and listening to Radio 4 – Inside Health with Dr Mark Porter – only 1 person I think to speak for the Government’s plans and lots with the opposite view – half an hour of anti-government propaganda.
You sound surprised … …
I’m the one who liked Cream Pie’s comment – I need a good joke to cheer me up from time to time
Comment? I thought there were… more. And then there were none.
But anyone who managed to get Albaman (who doesn’t ‘get’ much, especially out) to engage in debate on the meeting of minds basis s/he did deserves a few points on the board.
I’m impressed, I have to say. Definitely rarely do I encounter a weblog that is both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Your idea is outstanding; the concern is something that not enough many people are speaking intelligently about. I am very pleased that I stumbled across this in my search for something relating to this.
[url=http://www.cheapmkbagsshop.com/]michael kors online outlet[/url]
[url=http://www.cheapmkbagsshop.com/]michael michael kors hamilton satchel[/url]
I have not checked in here for some time since I thought it was getting boring, but the last several posts are great quality so I guess I will add you back to my everyday bloglist. You deserve it my friend :).See