» sjhoward.co.uk


  • Archive
  • Videos
  • Work
  • Tools
  • Freebies
  • Subscribe
  • Shop
  • Book
  • About
  • Mad Pat redefines ‘stabilising’

    Mad Pat redefines ‘stabilising’

    Filed at 23:03 on 7th June 2006.
    Filed by sjhoward at 23:03 on Wednesday, 7th June 2006 under News and Comment, Politics.

    Patricia Hewitt

    The NHS is now in £521,000,000 debt. That’s quite a lot. More than twice as much as this time last year, in fact.

    When responding to the last set of figures last December, Patricia Hewitt, our esteemed Health Secretary, announced that she would have the debt down to £250,000,000 by April. It’s now June, and she’s nowhere near – in fact, she’s heading in the wrong direction altogether, despite firing 12,000 people, cancelling countless operations, and reducing the quality of patient care. Yet today in Mad Pat world…

    The NHS is now stabilising this financial problem while counting to improve services for patients.

    Doubling of debt equals ‘stabilising this financial problem’. This new definition is very handy. Blood pressure doubled in 12 months? Don’t bother treating it, it’s stable! Tumour size doubled? Don’t worry about that cancelled op, your tumour’s stable! Think of the savings that can be made!

    Doctors can see what’s wrong here. The BMA Consultants Committee said

    Yes, bad management is a problem in some places, but the biggest cause is the interference from government. Something is going badly wrong and it is demoralising for staff.

    We know the nurses are against her following the extraordinary action at their conference.

    This demonstrates that even medical students, not yet employed by the NHS, aren’t fans:

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    And, hey-ho, the Confederation of the managers Mad Pat was so criticised for introducing in the first place is even against her:

    It is all too easy to blame individual managers, but the financial problems often relate to systemic issues.

    And, surprise surprise, the Opposition knows what’s wrong:

    Policy is failing.

    So who’s backing Mad Pat? Well, apparently, Mr Blair. Despite her coming out with meaningless misjudged announcement after meaningless misjudged announcement, even after missing her own targets by miles, there’s still no suggestion that she might be unfit for the position.

    Nobody in the NHS likes her, she polls badly, and she doesn’t meet targets. Why on Earth is she still in office?



    Interact with this post

    » Leave a comment or trackback about this post

    » Read others' comments, or subscribe to this post's RSS comments feed


    Your Comments and Responses

    Anonymous responds »

    mad pat is styoopit.

    14th August 2007 | Permalink

    » This comment was received at 13:27 on 14 August 07


    Write a new comment or response

    Commenting allows you to respond to what the author and other commenters have been said. Comments often appear on this page instantly, though sometimes take a little longer - especially if you are new to the site.

    Enter your comment in the text area below. You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

    Note: By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's Comment Policy.
    Gravatar: To show your face, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.






    Printed from http://sjhoward.co.uk/archive/2006/06/07/mad-pat-redefines-stablising
    (c) sjhoward.co.uk - full conditions can be viewed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
    The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site.