Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 15 July 2013

Labour can't be trusted with the NHS

Voters in the North East are learning painfully that Labour is best when it's, er, Tory. Having failed dismally to manage any sort of economic resurgence in the old Northern heartlands, Labour actually managed to widen the gap between rich and poor in the UK, had more young people out of work than any other post-war government, destroyed working-class communities with reckless immigration and so criminally maladministered the nation's finances that the great-grandchildren of all voters will still be paying for it. But it's with the NHS that Labour betrayed its own voter base most grievously. 

After throwing a tsunami of cash at an organisation unable to make good use of it Labour managed to double GPs' salaries to over £100k but cut their work to M -F 9 - 5, managed to pay NHS executives salaries and bonuses many times the Prime Minister's own salary, and fostered a culture of carelessness and irresponsibility that was ultimately responsible for over 13,000 needless pointless deaths in just 14 hospitals from poor care, medical errors and inadequate management. As the Telegraph points out, for Andrew Burnham, one of the Labour politicians responsible, to defend indignantly his own reputation whilst 13,000 families have lost so much more is behaviour of the most revolting self-interest. But what would you expect from a professional politician?

As with the banking and financial debacle, people should be in prison for what happened in the NHS under Labour - perhaps including Andrew Burnham. Why aren't they?


corncrake said...

Exactly correct with that question Raedwald.
Perhaps we can recall the Court of Public Opinion, give it a few powers and set it loose on our political elites.

DeeDee99 said...

Labour's whole record between 1997 and 1010 surely qualifies as Malfeasance in Public Office.

I can't think of a single Minister who was both competent and performed his duties responsibly, in the interests of the BRITISH people.

Perhaps that's why 'northerners' are listening to UKIP. Many can't bring themselves to vote for the Conservative Party - but they are open to voting for a straight-talking alternative which speaks their language and doesn't have the Tories track record to weigh it down.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this would do the trick?

H/T Wikipedia

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were used in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures.

Coney Island

James Higham said...

A lot may be said against Cameron and Co but that is as nothing compared to Labour.

Edward Spalton said...

I am fortunate to live near Derby where I can vouch for the excellent treatment offered by the Royal Hospital.But I minister at a Church in Staffordshire where I hear of appalling treatment from members of the congregation.

I will leave out the horrific for the comic, as this gives a true flavour without being harrowing. A lady went to see her husband in hospital but could not find him, so she asked a nurse who pointed and said "He's over there".
"That's not him" she said.
"O YES IT IS" said the nurse, becoming distinctly stroppy.
"Look dear, I've been married to him for fifty years and that's not him"
So, with considerable grumpiness, the nurse looked a little further until they found him in another bay.

More seriously, a report in the local paper sheds a rather horrible light on staff attitudes. A lady who was whistle blower on the Staffordshire hospital scandal has had to move out of the area because of unpleasantness and threats from hospital staff.

I was originally sympathetic to the staff, thinking how terrorised they must have been by management and in fear for their jobs. Well, it seems the latter assumption was right but like unionised members of the teaching profession, they will close ranks to protect the system, even as it fails horribly those it is supposed to be serving.

Anonymous said...

That bastion of "pay most; get best, the US, rates as 38th on the WHO ranking of health systems...we're 18th.
A course of antibioitic in the US cost me $320. It's free here. Relatively speaking.
In the US medical errors are the 6th biggest killer, some 98000 each year.
Hope you don't mind a few facts.
Mind you, you should probly expect more here....due to "staffing" many wards are operating, at night, with very few trained professionals. that's a management thing: cost reduction.

Edward Spalton said...

Allowing people to get so thirsty that they were drinking the water out of the flower vases is a humanity problem, not a management one.

I have also attended the dying (not in Staffordshie) on the Liverpool Pathway and believe that it amounted to hellish torture, being thirsted to death. Where I was, the nursing staff had very much of a "tick box" attitude.

Others whose loved ones were treated this way say it was a peaceful and dignified end . So it is a matter of common sense compassionate nursing.

A friend whom I attended was quite lucid in the 10 days or so before he died. He was quite convinced that "legalised murder" was taking place regularly in his ward - particularly of old people who had no visitors.

And, of course, some of those supposedly in the healing profession
regularly murder the unborn. So it is not surprising that the coarsening of morality should extend to the inconvenient at the other end of life.

Anonymous said...

Birth control decreases the population growth: Death control the same.
Get used to it. There will be more.
Once an "allowed life-span" can be designated.
After all, the elderly are the single largest drain on the countries resources.

Anon 2 said...

Yes, Anon. Not only do we elderly drain and control resources, we also tend to disagree with the new Controllers. That's why they're murdering us.

And that is what they do -- one foreign doctor (some sort of unpronounceable middle european) even expected me to approve of what he did to my aunt.

Of course, they'll murder the brainwashed later generations also - that's why the appropriate label is "useful idiots." It used to be that tptb inadvertently controlled population by wars. They're so much more civilised and gentle now, though... doncha know.

Budgie said...

I am sorry to say the NHS is rotten. Rotten management and rotten morals especially. Anon 19:15's attitude is typical of the moral rot: reducing human beings to the utilitarian one of being a "drain on the countries [sic] resources". In that sense the NHS is a child of its age.

Anonymous said...

Wait a few years. Then look at how things will have changed. The rhetoric, at this time, is about the "workshy" and "spongers".
The resentment, towards the elderly, is growing. No matter WHICH government we have (either the red one (now going towards lavender) or the blue one (now going towards lavender also)) the problem presented by the growing amount of non-working old people is only going to get worse, and more costly. People tend to target the unemployed and healthy, but they take a small piece of the welfare pie (the fraudsters take a miniscule portion, really small). The single largest group of benefit claimants are the state pensioners.
Call it moral rot if you like, but in the end everything comes down to money.

Anonymous said...

Johnm said...

"There were no ‘excess’ deaths at Mid Staffordshire NHS during the 2005-2009 period in which the news media and anti-MSNHS campaigners claim there were 400-1200 of them – or, in the words of the independent clinical expert who led the ‘Independent Case-Note Review’ (ICNR) into each individual, contentious death at the Trust"