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:

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?

Ms Hewitt’s spell of virtual insanity continues, with her now announcing that she wants to make those who spread MRSA criminals:

Private cleaning contractors, managers and even visitors could face criminal liability for spreading the hospital superbug MRSA in the NHS.

Presumably, these people would then be forced to wear the uniforms proposed by her Crazy Cabinet colleague, Hazel Blears.

But, seriously, what does Ms Hewitt hope to acheive by making spreading MRSA a crime? To do so would mean that doctors would have to take every possible step to avoid litigation – is she seriously suggesting that all doctors should have a full surgical scrub before seeing every patient? That would more than triple the length of the average consultation, so I hope she’s got some money squirrelled away for lots of extra doctors. And what about the emergency situation? Are we all to completely scrub up before performing emergency procedures? A few more deaths might well be occuring if that’s expected.

MRSA will only be brought under control with sensible steps to educate medical staff and the public about prevention, and the necessary funding to keep hygeine standards up. If the funding had been available to put alcohol gel next to every bed five or six years ago – instead of only just getting round to it – then MRSA wouldn’t be such a big a problem now. Threatening people with litigation is simply absurd, and deeply unhelpful. And if she’s going to start slapping fines on cleaning companies, standards are unlikely to improve much but costs will sky-rocket. So I hope there’s lots of money available for the government to pay its own fines, too.

Update: Typo corrected

Wendy and I were recently travelling back from Madrid via Amsterdam. The first leg of the journey was delayed, which meant we missed our connection. We knew there were no later connections that day and that we would be stranded overnight.

On arrival at Schiphol, we sought assistance from the ground staff. We walked past many self-service machines, assuming they couldn’t help us, and waited in a long queue. Once we reached the front, a staff member operated one of the self-service machines for us as if we were technologically incompetent. The self-service machine could issue a meal voucher, a hotel voucher, details of where to meet a shuttle to our hotel, and rebooking us on the next available flight. Human intervention from a staff member was, as it turned out, not required.

If I were in the same situation again, I’d use a machine independently rather than queue; of course, I would. This is great for the airline, saving them significant money in staffing costs.

But is ruthless efficiency the right approach here? A personable expression of sympathy and regret would seem to go a little further in building customer loyalty. It struck me as a little inconsistent that an airline that insists on using my name when handing me an in-flight meal doesn’t want to speak to me when things have gone wrong.

I recently bought a jacket online. It didn’t fit, even though it was labelled the same size as many garments I’ve bought from the same retailer.

I returned it to a branch of the chain from which I bought it. I was directed to use a self-service return machine. This was simplicity itself, aided by the chain using a unique identifying barcode for every garment sold. By scanning the tag, the machine could look up my details and process the return with a single confirmatory tap on the touchscreen. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the system again in the future.

Yet, this approach robbed the chain of the reason for my return and the opportunity for a linked sale: the next size up. It also removes any sense of empathy and any impression that the chain is doing anything to avoid similar situations in the future.

Reducing store staffing looks good for the bottom line, but I’m not sure it’s the right approach for the long run.

Amazon has been promoting delivery of orders by drone for years, yet it remains available only in a handful of locations. This New York Times article by David Streitfeld delves into how this works for people. I was particularly struck by the header video and the revelation that the drone drops packages from a height of twelve feet.

Amazon believes that this programme demonstrates a commitment to pushing the boundaries of technology in the service of its customers. I’m unsure that Amazon understands that the video of packages being dropped from such a height undermines any impression of care or concern about individual orders.

The image at the top of this post was generated by DALL·E 3.

I am nowhere near well-read enough of art to be aware of the (apparently very famous) mid-20th century Scottish artist Wilhelmina Burns-Graham. I therefore didn’t really know what to expect of this exhibition. From the title, I assumed the work would be abstract, which, as I’ve previously mentioned, is right up my street.

It turned out that this large-scale exhibition of seventy chronologically presented paintings and drawings was quite fascinating in the way it showed the development of Wilhelmina Barns-Graham’s style.

Barns-Graham’s early work was almost entirely representative: there were a lot of ‘nice’ but plain depictions of ‘nice’ by plain scenes, such as the Cornish landscape. Some of these had a rather idiosyncratic style with some bold brushstrokes, but there was nothing in this work that especially stood out to me.

Later, Burns-Graham painted and drew pictures of Swiss glaciers, which naturally have quite abstract and complex forms. Whether it was due to the hanging of the exhibition or a true reflection of reality, I could feel Burns-Graham becoming increasingly taken with abstract forms over this period. The pictures became much less representative, and much more reflective of feeling and response… much more my kind of thing.

I was very taken in by this 1958 painting, Pink and Flame, which suggested so many things to me, but most especially the warmth of a fireplace in a living room (or perhaps a kitchen?)

From here, Barns-Graham started to experiment with even greater abstraction, teaching me that regular geometric forms can, in fact, be even more abstract than works without clear form.

This is 1964’s Cinders, which stood out to me as a good comparison with the 1958 painting, for depicting a broadly similar thing in a much more abstracted–but more geometric–form. This slightly blew my mind, as I’ve always associated abstraction with a lack of form.

So, what I really liked about this exhibition was the way it flowed, and the way I could follow through the development of this singular artist’s work over decades. I at least had the impression that I was following her thought patterns, which made for a very successful and absorbing show.

This last work, 1966’s Bird Song, stood out to me for quite personal reasons. I find the colours in it, combined with the synaesthesic abstraction, fascinating. Looked at one way, the yellows and oranges are a celebration of spring, of everything that is positive in nature. Looked at another way, they are colours of warning, of danger, of distress.

This struck a chord with me: it’s a weird thing to admit, but I’m not a fan of birdsong. ‘How,’ you might wonder, ‘can anyone dislike birdsong?’

I just find so much of it irritating. It’s the alarm-like aesthetic of repeating sounds, often not even repeated in a rhythm that I can try to tune out. I often want the birds to shut up. It’s the bursts of birdsong that made me stop listening to Scala Radio’s In the Park each morning.

Anyway… I was just delighted that Barns-Graham captured a bit of that element in her painting, intentionally or otherwise.

Wilhelmina Barns-Graham: Paths to Abstraction continues at the Hatton Gallery until 20 May.

BBC One should reflect the whole of the UK in its output.

That’s a key part of BBC One’s remit. I get that the ratings are better on the CBBC channel, and I sympathise with that position; but I simply don’t see how BBC One can meet it’s remit without kid’s programmes. BBC Two hasn’t got over the existential crisis it had because of BBC Three and Four, yet they’re inviting the question: “What’s BBC One for?”

It also invites criticism, means that they have to find (and pay for) something to plug the gaps in the schedule, and reduces awareness of kid’s TV amongst the people who actually pay for it. As strategies go, it seems like madness.

Peter Horrocks has written an interesting piece on his BBC blog defending the way the organisation has told the story of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. Unfortunately, his defence makes little sense. Some selected extracts…

Often we’re not able to give viewers any new information and that’s one of the things I spend a lot of time talking to my journalists about, to focus on facts … I know that many other TV and radio networks have been absolutely extraordinary, always talking about it in terms of sympathy and their feelings

I am incomplete agreement with Mr Horrocks here: Reportage of the facts, not of feelings, is exactly where BBC News should be focussed in this instance.

Questions have been raised over why we used a helicopter to cover the McCanns’ journey home from East Midlands airport.

An understandable question: Coverage of a car driving from one place to another has apparently little news value, and adds few new ‘facts’. So why did the BBC cover it?

The McCanns’ return was an important emotional moment in this story, and something which we felt we needed to cover for continuous news.

Eh? The BBC, which Mr Horrocks says focuses entirely on facts, and indeed is better than its rivals because of its emotional detachment from the story, felt the need to give continuous coverage to a car journey because it was an “emotional moment in this story”.

I sense a gap in the logic.

I forgot to point this out last week: There was much coverage of the increased costs of calling home from hospital in the media at large, with much criticism of the provider of the systems, PatientLine. But as I said back in 2005, when this was last in the news, it’s not PatientLine who’s to blame – it’s Mad Pat.

The Times’s Ann Treneman has successfully diagnosed the problem with our Health Secretary, Pat “crazy lady” Hewitt:

PATRICIA HEWITT is suffering from a medical condition in which she says the opposite of what is true. Those close to the Health Secretary accept this and have learnt to cope. So when Pat says “the sun is shining” they know that, in fact, it is bucketing down and to take an umbrella.

Yesterday she tackled Sir Nigel Crisp’s abrupt departure from the NHS by heaping praise on him. Hearing this, we all assumed he had been pushed.

She spoke of him in the kind of hushed tones that many people would reserve for an extraordinary pet: a parakeet that could knit jumpers, for instance, or dog that could speak Japanese. “Under his leadership,” she said, her voice lapping upon us like the gentlest of waves, “we have seen extraordinary improvements — record improvements — in the performance of the NHS.”

This made us realise things were worse than we had thought. MPs exchanged looks of incredulity. The Tories were rustling like rats in a pantry. “Retired! Retired!” they muttered, eyes wide with wonder. Ms Hewitt pretended this wasn’t happening.

She has now perfected the art of acting like all three wise monkeys at once: she sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil. If she isn’t careful, she might get a reputation for being vacuous.

Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, was spluttering. Mr Lansley looks a bit like the mild-mannered Barney Rubble from The Flintstones. Yesterday, though, he managed something approaching anger as he tried to extract the truth out of Ms Hewitt about the ever rising NHS yearly deficit.

This proved as difficult as getting a tooth taken out by an NHS dentist. Ms Hewitt was wearing a giant fake flower on her lapel. All new Labour women have these (I assume a mail-order catalogue is involved) and the Health Secretary owns several. Yesterday she had on a pink peony that was as large as a bread plate. As she came under attack from all sides of the House about the deficits, the peony began to tremble with outrage.
We knew the finances were out of control because she kept insisting she was getting a grip on them. Mr Lansley charted the deficit in remorseless detail. First she said it would be £200 million.

But, after six months, she admitted it was closer to £620 million. So what was the real figure? Was it not now approaching £800 million?

She sat, lips pursed, peony poised for battle. Mr Rubble wasn’t letting her off the hook. Was she going to take responsibility for this? Or, he asked slyly, did Sir Nigel have to take the blame? “Perhaps he doesn’t yet appreciate to what extent he is going to pay a last service to the National Health Service, or at least to the Secretary of State, in acting as fall guy for the lack of financial control in the NHS.”

Her voice was deadly calm now. She praised Sir Nigel for being “outstanding”. (It sounds so damning when she says it.) Then, in what doctors are now saying is as close to a miracle cure as has been seen for her condition, Ms Hewitt admitted things were not utterly fantastic. The House erupted in hoots of laughter. Things are, obviously, very serious indeed.

I’ve always known there was something wrong…

A couple of weeks ago, I provided you with a reason for Americans to feel smug. By which I meant citizens of the USA, not everyone from the North and South American continents, but I’m not going to stop using that shorthand, so please don’t complain.

Now, however, I’ve found definitive proof that being an American isn’t so good, simply because you have to put up with sickening patriotism. There are so many things ideologically wrong with that video that I don’t even want to start down that path. But what amused me was the statement on the website:

America We Stand As One and Dennis Madalone did not authorize or assist in the production, creation, or concept behind alternative “spoof” videos of America We Stand As One.

The whole thing looks like one big spoof. It’s embarrassing to watch. And, more than that, it’s just bad. It almost makes me feel sorry for them. Almost.

A fascinating business, this reshuffle lark.  Here are my initial thoughts on each of the roles, and the people now filling them.

Chancellor of the Exchequer: Alistair Darling
No surprises here, then.  He’s always struck me as a sort of inoffensive puppy, who does whatever he’s told, and does it very efficiently.  There’s no chance of this ending in a Blair/Brown relationship, I don’t think Darling has the driving ambition or the nous for that.  His opinion flips with whatever his bosses tell him: From devolution, to independence for the Bank of England, he just thinks what he’s told to think.  And I’m slightly scared of his eyebrows.

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice: Jack Straw
I like Jack Straw.  He’s a man of some honour, and he says what he really thinks.  I don’t always agree with what he thinks, but I reckon he’s got his head screwed on, and will work well Justice.  Good for him.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip: Geoff Hoon
Not a bad move at all.  Geoff Hoon’s slightly ridiculous and bumbling manner makes him bad at some jobs: Secretary of State for Defence being one of them, where I felt he was pretty terrible.  But I reckon he’s got a good political sense about him, and will probably do well as Chief Whip.

Leader of the House of Commons, Minister for Women, and Labour Party Chair: Harriet Harman
Not the person I would’ve put in the position of Leader of the House of Commons if I was hoping to push ahead with the excellent work on Parliamentary reform given a real boost in the last few months by Jack Straw.  Note also, in this age of apparent equality, that there’s still no equivalent Minister for Men.  As for Harriet Harman herself, I really have no opinion.

Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: James Purnell
The Guardian calls him ‘good-looking’.  I don’t see it.  He looks more like one of those slightly suspicious characters in 24 who turns out to be head of the terrorists plotting to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil.  Again.  Just like they were plotting last season.  But more pertinently, it seems utterly bizarre that the person in charge of culture and sport apparently isn’t in charge of the biggest thing in British culture and sport for decades: The Olympics.  I’m not sure whether that’s an example astounding idiocy or great brilliance.  On the one hand, it could lead to a giant scrap because of overlapping portfolios, but on the other, it could mean that culture outside of the Olympics can be concentrated on and cultivated by one individual, which might help to stop the diversion of all funding and support away from valid projects to be pumped into the Olympics.

Secretary of State for Defence, and Secretary of State for Scotland: Des Browne
No question of who he looks like: His Westminster nickname is Swiss Toni.  He’s been a reasonably good defence secretary up to now, apart from the little upset over the Iranian Hostages being allowed to sell their stories.  A good idea to keep him in his post.

Secretary of State for International Development: Douglas Alexander
A pretty inoffensive Scot, in a pretty inoffensive post.  Meh.

Minister for the Cabinet Office and Treasury of the Duchy of Lancaster: Ed Miliband
It’s the Miliblogger’s brother, who looks remarkably like Ernie.  And you can kind of convince yourself that Miliblogger himself looks a bit like Bert, if you screw your eyes up tight.  He seems a less ridiculous politician than his brother, and seems to understand the value of keeping quiet sometimes.

Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families: Ed Balls
A newly created job, covering one half of the old Department for Education and Skills, though quite why Brown has thrown ‘families’ into the brief is beyond me.  Ed Balls seems to have quite a shrewd political mind, but I’m not sure he’ll be all that great in this post.  But certainly an interesting one to watch.

Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills: John Denham
A minister for ‘innovation’? What a bizarre title.  But this is the other half of the DfES.  Not quite sure what to think of Mr Denham, to be honest.

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Hilary Benn
It’s always struck me as odd that there’s a minister for ‘rural affairs’, as if it’s some niche topic, when, in reality, more people in our country live in ‘rural’ areas than cities.  But perhaps that’s not clear to Londoners.  Hilary Benn seems a very committed politician, who’s honest and will say what he thinks.  Despite his relatively low profile, I rather like Mr Benn – and he’s certainly better in this job than the Miliblogger.

Secretary of State for Health: Alan Johnson
Ding dong, the witch is dead! Or, at least, Mad Pat’s gone. For all her wrongs, though, I wouldn’t wish her to be leaving because of her dying mother, and I do feel sympathy for her. Brown has declared the NHS to be his priority (as Cameron did some months ago), so it will be interesting to see where this goes. Mr Johnson could be a great success, or a terrible failure. He’s a bit of a slime-ball, and was a big advocate of tuition fees. But a little bit of slime might just help him to appear amenable to the staff of the NHS, and if he’s slimy in the right way, he could make this work. But if he argues with Brown, as seems likely, and messes stuff up, he could be the sleazeball that loses Brown the next election. It’s a big risk, but it might just pay off.

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: David Miliband
Oh, dear god, why?  We’ve gone from the mildly bizarre caravanning foreign secretary of Margaret Beckett, to David ‘connect with the people’ Miliblogger – who only wants to connect with those who agree with him.  His much maligned (and hugely expensive) blog, combined with his wiki that had to be taken down, just make him look utterly ridiculous.  Jack Straw brought gravitas and diplomacy to this role.  Miliblogger simply ignores people he disagrees with – not exactly being diplomatic.  Why people think he’s a future Labour leader, I simply do not understand.

Secretary of State for the Home Department: Jacqui Smith
Another slightly unknown quantity.  It’s rumoured that no-one wanted this job, and it’s probably understandable.  Of late, it’s become something of a poisoned chalice.  Will she be the one to turn it round, and flourish in this pressured role?  I don’t see it happening.

Secretary for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: John Hutton
So, out go the scary eyebrows, and in comes John Hutton. I’m not a fan of his, but I’ve no concrete idea why.  Perhaps it’s the association with the snake that is Alan Milburn, perhaps it’s that he shares a name with Lord Hutton, I don’t know.  But I don’t like him, and I don’t trust him.

Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council: Lady Ashton
Lady Ashton has got a tough act to follow in Baroness Amos, but she’s got form to do it.  Once Stonewall’s politician of the year, she’s also worked strenuously against forced marriage.  She had strong beliefs, and sticks to them.  I think she’ll do well.

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Hazel Blears
The perma-smile moves to communities and local government.  It’s good that Hazel has got control of local government, for that is where I feel she rather belongs – and the sooner this poor naive woman is out of the national picture, the better for her and us.

Secretary of State for Nothern Ireland: Shaun Woodward
The butlered multi-millionaire ex-Conservative (and ex-editor of Esther Rantzen’s That’s Life) seems such an affably impotent guy that he might just be perfect for this role right now.  With so much progress in Northern Ireland, he’s not someone who’s going to rock the boat too much.  A good pick.

Secretary of State for Transport: Ruth Kelly
I think Ruth Kelly might go further in government than people think.  She’s a very controversial figure, but, like Mr Blair, nothing sticks.  The number of scandals she’s been involved in, from Home Information Packs, to turning down a job and the Department of Health because she’s against abortion, and at the Department of International Development because it promotes the use of condoms, to sending her son to a private school while at the Department for Education and Skills.  She’s a remarkably intelligent woman, and will be on the scene for a long time to come.  Whether or not that’s a good thing, I’m distinctly unsure.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Andy Burnham
One of those posts no-one really cares all that much about.  Burnham’s best bet is to keep it that way.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Peter Hain
Peter Hain used to talk a lot of sense, but appears to have been losing his marbles somewhat of late.  He’s too outspoken for his own good, and I don’t think this job will fit him particularly well.

Minister for Housing: Yvette Cooper
Ed Balls’s other half.  I’m not sure what I make of her, in all honesty.

Minister for Children and Youth Justice: Beverley Hughes
An impressive number of ‘e’s in that name. I haven’t been concentrating enough to understand how her job differs all that much from Ed Balls’s.  Let’s hope she has.

Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN: Lord Malloch Brown
A fascinating appointment from outside of Westminster.  The former UN Deputy Secretary General, it will be interesting to see what he gets up to.  Perhaps shows that Gordon is taking Africa seriously – or at least trying to appear that way.

Minister for the Olympics and London: Tessa Jowell
As already mentioned, a role which appears to overlap considerably with Purnell’s.  But her unashamed buddyness with Ken Livingstone should work well.

Attorney General: Lady Scotland
Can only hope that she does a better job than Lord Goldsmith… and it looks like she might be.  Certainly seems to be more of a high-flyer.

Deputy PM: No-one
The fact that no-one needs to take over from John Prescott rather confirms what we already knew: He hasn’t been doing anything of use for months.

So there you go… that’s pretty much what I think of the new gang, right now.  It’ll probably change in about five minutes’ time.

I’m particularly glad to see the backs of John ‘attack dog’ Reid and Mad Pat, but I’m sure this new bunch will have some equally annoying characters.  It kinda reminds me of Big Brother – except we let this bunch of misfits run the country, and there’s only an eviction every four years, and even then it’s David Dimbleby at the helm rather than Davina screaming at us.  Though there’s an idea for Channel 4 next election night…

And if reports are to be believed, the next election night might be earlier than we thought – next year, perhaps.  If that happens, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Brown win.  Interesting times ahead.