Fay Wilson wrote:
> PS Midge before you point out the glaring howlers in my calculation I
> know about them already. My contention is that there are lies, damn
> lies and statistics and mine are better!
> Fay
>
Looks reasonable to me, however people may be misinterpreting this
argument as something about money, or about providing a good health
service at reasonable cost, when it actually comes from a number of
causes (which might include those, somewhere deep and subsidiary):-
- Camouflaging the recurrent arrest for, this time, corruption of the
honours process and attempted corruption of justice of Mr Blair's close
asssitant Ruth Turner, and other arrests of a similar nature;
- dislike of us among some of the apparatchicks
- hiding the deficiencies of planning and management in the NHS which
predominantly lie within the spheres of influence of the managerial
cadres and to a lesser extent the political cadre.
- the absence of an effective prime minister impairing concentration and
authority down through the secretary of state into the DOH - teh thing
isn't properly under control so the stupidity trap is malfunctioning.
- A continued rise in a feature of the NHS/DoH which I first noted
during conservative government of managers not merely lying occasionally
and feeling bad about it, but lying first when it was convenient, and
latterly as a preferred behaviour, and no longer feeling good about it.
Indeed, I think the corrupting principle of higher management requiring
lower management to appear to believe and to repeat lies as a means of
impairing their critical (of their superiors) faculty is active. It is
one of the adverse factors a prime minister with a preference for
truthfulness might have reversed, and that would have been a good if
unobtrusive legacy.
There are other bits of chaos and nastiness swirling about, but those'll
do for a start.
--
A
|