Wednesday, 10 January, 2007
- 10 Jan 07, 05:56 PM
Tonight President Bush will outline his new policy on Iraq and it will involve sending at least 20,000 new troops. With American public support for the war ebbing away and the Democrats WINNING THE Mid Terms this must be one of the biggest political gambles of Bush's presidency. How will history judge Bush's new Iraq policy? Also: NHS waiting list showdown; are Ryanair as green as they claim? And Geek Week: who are we in cyberspace?
Comment on .
Comments Post your comment
'tired of people from backward nations scamming us out of our tax dollars by claiming 'refugee' status..'
Patrick, I scarcely need to point out that the reason Iraq is in the mess it's in is due to Britain and, er..America.
Blaming them for the mess is a little like burgling your neighbour, shooting their daughter and then complaining about the cost of the ammunition.
Complain about this post
The best line of the night by Jeremy -"It's hardly worth going to work is it?" (referring to the latest Geek Week report on cyberspace) LOVE it!!!!!!!! Excellent interviews with Kuchicnic & the Leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, and particularly the NHS debate with Gerry Robinson & David Nicholson. Jeremy = The Best!
Complain about this post
Forgetting Iraq & Dubya, what about the NHS? How many management studies, troubleshooters and other hired gurus does it need? Isn't the truth of the matter that this government has allowed it to get into a disastrous financial mess? Are the Troubleshooter and the Chief Executive fit for purpose? How much deeper in the doo-doo must the NHS get before there is a serious, cross-party attempt to rescue one of the greatest British institutions, now sinking into ambiguity and financial ruin?
How's that for rhetoric? But what are they all going to do about it? Is Britain still great, or a shambles that has lost its direction (more very necessary rhetorical questions)?
Geek Week. While I thought the idea of giving the Maasai mobiles had some mileage in it, Wednesday night's New Age religious rubbish could be transcripted wholesale for Private Eye's Pseuds' Corner. The pathetically socially and emotionally challenged weirdos we saw in the piece are ample proof why we should not be weeping over the graves of our ancestors and flying around imaginary buildings. This is the pits of infantilism, making people living in dreary housing estates in Tamworth think they've reached heaven. It is a recipe for technology fetish and worship, plus living a life of total fantasy, devoid of responsibility and interaction with real people.
I'm glad that Jerry billed it as the weird excrescences of usually normal Newsnight reporters. If I were Alan Sugar, I'd start weeding out the nutters that force Paul Mason, Justin Rowlatt and others to make such nonsensical reportage with the implied threat that they'll be out on their ear if they don't cooperate with the rather odd people that have infiltrated management.
Complain about this post
where was the ryanair feature from tonight's show ... did o'leary threaten to sue or something?!
Complain about this post
Presumably this mysterious meta mind place thingy Wizegeek Mason so laboriously drooled on (and on) about is just a posh way of describing The Imagination - which I gather (but stop me if I've misunderstood) was invented even before the internet itself.
Complain about this post
Top article by Paul Mason. It has really made me question my realtionships with online aquaintances, my behaviour when gaming online in fact the whole way i use the net. I remember how excited I was when I first got a pc and went online. Within weeks-days it had changed my life and the way i viewed the world.Gaming, research, blogging,discussion forums, shopping... This may all sound a little dramatic but I do the things that Paul covered tonight. I game online(a lot),I rant on discusion forums,I even come here quite often to have a moan, I have searched(in vain) for my birth mother and these things have brought me into contact with people that I would have never met(and probably never will actually meet), but some of whom I would now call friends. I have always gushed about what a positive, enlightening experience cyberspace is without ever really asking myself why that should be so. Tonight's report has ceratinly put an end to that. Thanks Paul.
Complain about this post
Dear Sir
In your programme, the Chief Executive of the NHS stated that increasing the number of clinicians in management positions would help to improve management performance in the NHS. Unfortunately, it would seem that many non-clinically trained NHS managers are implicitly opposed to clinicians becoming senior managers. I am aware of a London PCT that is proposing to make redundant a medical consultant who also has excellent qualifications (MSc and PHD) and experience in health planning/administration and health economics. The same PCT is also proposing to promote non-clinical managers who do not have management training or health-specific qualifications. If the Chief Executive of the NHS is committed to increasing clinicians in management posts then clear guidance to NHS organizations is urgently required
Complain about this post
Normally love Paul Mason. Tonight's "Geek Week" report insulted intelligence. Has Newsnight fallen into trap of assuming viewers have IQ of 70?
Where was your mind Paul?
Complain about this post
Excellent programme, though it is annoying when the 大象传媒 start Newsnight a few minutes late which has become a habit.
The item on cyberspace was tiresome, in a way, in that little imagination went into exploring realistic uses of the technology. The rise in identity theft is a symptom of the growth in the culture of people locking themselves away from reality to impersonate the person they would like to be, whether in chat rooms, shooting games, or other imaginary worlds. Apart from the growth in individualism and isolation that this technology promotes, and associated abuse of same, there are potentially more useful applications, such as in education and science.
War games and simulations were developed by the military for scenario planning. In a more civilised society, can we imagine future wars being fought in the same way as the spectacle we saw on Newsnight, with people creating personalities, arming them, and fighting imaginary street battles? In such a scenario, a New Order (say UN) would take a deposit from a nation in money, like an online casino operator. The nations would then engage in a cyberspace war, with volunteer soldiers engaged from the population. The losing nation would have to pay real money for damage, compensation and reparations to the winning nation. This would be a war without blood or loss of life, but with economic consequences for participants, especially the losers.
As bizarre as this seems, it is is probably as likely and feasable as the suggested deveolpment of a new religion being a byproduct of online interactive shooting games.
Was the Ryanair segment dropped, or did I snooze through it?
Complain about this post
Accelerated health recovery...
NHS SEDATE CULTURE V COMPANY CULTURE.
"In the NHS there are no customers only timings and procedures".....
Did we see "a sedate culture of suffering and compromise, employees in earning roles, waiting for orders, worrying about behaviours, respects, compliance, and obedience... "
Rather than "a company culture of customisation, optimisation, empowerment, application, ownership, and careful ambitions, that knows what is worth doing, and rationalises, and continuously improves options with better practice "
Would a change make a difference..is staff proactive dynamism appropriate for patients...it seemed like employees did not know what to care about other than themselves... how new labour...
Any business studier might have an opinion...it is common manufacturing systems stuff..but few middle class books address the real options...Is TVs pre-gcse playground chat thinking going to fix? the NHS...
What are the appropriate quality indicators, risk factor controls, allowances and tolerances from each stakeholder tactical and strategic point of view ...
Patients need to assess their own attitude to risk reveiw method statements staff and operational quality options as part of their accelerated health recovery preparations
Benedict TLC From a man part sedated for 5 years for showing business class autonomy and control in a hospital...reawakening his graduate studies...
Complain about this post
Since president Bush has revealed his new Iraq policy, can we assume that there was an old one lurking around somewhere? If so I wonder what it was as I can't remember being aware of one. The impression a lot of people have (and I think rightly so) is that the policy makers didn't have a clue what to do once they had 'Won' the war.
Complain about this post
If you managed to catch Gerry Robinsons triology on the NHS...& it was very good.(the Irish Blarney et al ) You may have heard him admit in the last Ep' that despite everything & the impression given by the "ever so condescending" Patricia Hewitt insisting that PTs were the absolute authourity... GR'sthrow away line..paraphrased said, there were still strings attached to the Sec' of Healths Dept'!
Take that to mean it was still being governed Top Down, & all the Trusts report to her...ugh!
Complain about this post
I鈥檓 writing to respond to the many posts panning Paul Mason鈥檚 report. The contempt and disdain shown by Jeremy and here on the posts made me wonder whether people just hadn鈥檛 understood the piece or just condemned it out of hand because it dared to ask questions that they were afraid to consider. I am presuming the latter.
Firstly I鈥檝e got to say that Collected Eric鈥檚 comments about the people in the report a little rude. On what grounds can he make such cutting observations with such little knowledge about the people involved? I would hate to call such name-calling infantile. I know enough people who think that writing into Newsnight as often as Eric does would make him socially and emotionally challenged, and not a little pathetic. The difference being that those people would have the good grace to keep their opinions about his character to themselves.
But I digress鈥. I am an atheist but that does not stop me recognising mankind鈥檚 need for a spiritual connection somewhere or at least the distinct lack of it in today鈥檚 society. It is well documented throughout history that prayer, meditation, chanting, dancing, music and drugs can all help humans achieve a different state of consciousness. Recently scientists claimed to have discovered 鈥渢he god channel鈥 in the brain- a part that only seems active during spiritual experience. Who is to say that cyberspace may not be another path to this part of the brain. If this was so what implications might that hold for mankind, to have access to a part of the brain that allows a different level of awareness? Questions of the self or the soul or whatever you want to call it, have been around as long as mankind. It is only the dead and those on very high horses that do not ponder these things.
On the subject of online gaming, there is so much more to the area than just shooting folk and flying around. There is a massive variety of gaming experience out there; most of them require social interaction and teamwork to achieve the goals. Surely helping to rescue a group of cyber-hostages with my online team-mates from an online enemy in a game is only slightly different to engaging my imagination in say a Robert Ludlum novel. The main difference being that online I would have to socially interact with real people! This interaction happens in a place where the usual social rules have been thrown out of the window. Your social background, appearance, accent cease to matter. All that matters is how you interact with other REAL people in your online world. To condemn this huge chunk of folk as tech-fetishists, devoid of responsibility and social interaction seems a little prejudicial and blinkered.
On a last point I鈥檇 just like to ask ,if a colleague of yours showed such disdain for your work in front of such a large audience, as Jeremy did for Paul鈥檚 piece, would you applaud them for their spirit or question their professionalism and manners?
Complain about this post
NHS here we go again. You had two heavyweights on your programme who had something to say to us which we might or might not have agreed with but certainly would have found interesting. And we get the old blowhard JP with his usual policy of Interruption Interruption Interruption coupled with a completely asinine comment about doctors playing golf. Stereotyping stereotyping stereotyping? Why do you let him do it?
Complain about this post
THE FUTURE OF IRAQ & ELSEWHERE
Despite all the discussion at the end of 2006, and in particular the Baker Report, there has been no surprise expressed that George Bush is fighting on. After all what did he have to lose! The odds against him 鈥榳inning鈥 may be a million to one; but that is all he has left 鈥 and he is a small enough man to grasp at that straw regardless of the cost in human lives.
The good news is that we can now see the future clearly laid out before us. The main components of this will most probably be:
1. FRAGMENTATION OF IRAQ AND CIVIL WAR 鈥 It is likely that there is now no hope that the ultimate break up will not occur. Two clear (relatively stable?) entities are likely to emerge; the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South. Both of these will have significant oil revenues to support their recovery. The third 鈥 unstable 鈥 element in the middle will be Sunni mixed with Shia. It will have no oil revenues, but a relatively large population with nowhere to go. The result in Baghdad will be anarchy on scale approaching that which has haunted Somalia for so long. Sucked into the midst of this chaos will be the US military, regardless of who controls its political will.
2. WIDER DEVELOPMENTS 鈥 The resulting three fragments will, however, then become the focus for further unrest. The Shia south will most naturally look to Iran and the Sunni middle to Syria. Much as they may sympathize with the plight of their fellow worshippers, these two nations will not welcome the potential unrest 鈥 from these unstable populations - which any attempts at consolidation will bring. Although the Kurdish area of Iraq has been the most stable in recent years, the position of a 鈥榝ree Kurdish nation鈥 will act as a focus for the Kurd freedom movements in Turkey and Iran. This may well lead to even greater tensions, and outright war, in those areas.
3. US EXTERNAL RELATIONS 鈥 The Bush fiasco will not just destroy the image of the US around the world, almost making it the new leper country, but it will cripple its ability to make meaningful foreign policy. The new, post-2008, political establishment there will accordingly retreat into a limited form of isolationism; though, with globalization a fact of life, this will not be as damaging as that in the 1920s.
4. US INTERNAL POLITICS 鈥 The Republican Party, unable (and to an extent unwilling) to distance itself from Bush, will enter a period of electoral disasters; much as the Tories did in the UK in the 1990s. The neo-cons will, quite simply, be destroyed! If the Democrats can return to the consensus politics espoused by President Clinton, something which is not though guaranteed, they can look forward to at least a decade of power; building a new compact with the mass of the US population in the centre 鈥 and eventually setting a new moderate tone for the whole world.
5. THE EU鈥橲 GROWING DOMINANCE 鈥 The vacuum created by the US retreat will leave the EU in a position to become the dominant political force internationally. China and India are not yet ready to challenge this. Its dominance will be reinforced if, as is likely, the new socialists in the UK move closer to social-democratic mainland Europe.
6. ISRAEL & PALESTINE 鈥 Although none of this will in theory affect these two states, the destabilization in the region 鈥 and the effective removal of Israel鈥檚 unquestioning (US) backer 鈥 will apply pressure to negotiate a peaceful settlement, and Tony Blair may rescue his own reputation by promoting such moves.
So, a very chaotic time for all in the Middle-East, but its not all bad news!
Complain about this post
GERRY ROBINSON鈥橲 TAKE ON THE NHS
The three recent 大象传媒 programmes in which Gerry tried to have some impact on just one NHS trust were well worthwhile watching, especially for those in the NHS itself. His views were as direct and insightful as ever, as well as providing fascinating television. The essence of his diagnosis, that the 鈥榗ommon-sense鈥 of those at the sharp end is the best basis for decision-making, was 鈥 as always and in all organizations - something I would wholeheartedly support.
Having said that, he disregarded one basic fact. This was that, underneath all the reforms various governments have imposed, the NHS still has collegial structure. This is very different to the hierarchical structure which Gerry is used to, hence his emphasis on what he saw as the crucial 鈥 and especially the central - role of the chief executive. This is, incidentally, the same mistake that has regularly been made since Margaret Thatcher first tried to impose managers on the NHS a quarter of a century ago.
At that time, in the early 1980s, hospitals were run by the consultants; and everyone recognized this. Indeed, they were based on a collection of small 鈥榖usinesses鈥, the consultants and their staffs, each of which negotiated a separate contract with the NHS; and they even each referred to themselves as the 鈥榝irm鈥. This had been the outcome of the battle which took place at the birth of the NHS, when the Attlee government had been faced down by their predecessors. This might seem an idiosyncratic, and even anarchic, structure; but it worked, and worked well 鈥 to the extent that it was then probably the most efficient in the world and at least twice as efficient as that of the US. Margaret Thatcher, however, wanted to control these mavericks; and set up highly paid managers to do just that.
As Gerry Robinson鈥檚 programmes showed, the situation a quarter of a century on is largely unchanged; though the efficiency has been undermined by the managers desperately, but without success, trying to control the consultants. The contract is the same. Each consultant is a law until himself or herself, and reports to nobody but themselves. This situation is, however, no longer so idiosyncratic.
Now called 鈥榗ollegial management鈥, it is recognized across a wide, and growing, range of organizations. These, of course, include the world of academia 鈥 to which hospital doctors are closely related 鈥 but they now extend to consultancies and many in the IT industries. They are a reflection of the fact that many jobs in the new industries are self-managed. The work is so flexible that 鈥榤anagers鈥 can no longer directly instruct their employees but can only set guidelines and then provide support. In this context, indeed, at the ultimate of the collegial organization management鈥檚 role is almost entirely in support.
This is where the clash between the two groups, seen in the programmes can be so debilitating. 鈥楳anagement鈥 feel they must be in charge, and are charged by government with such a role. In reality they can never control those (consultants) who alone know that is needed at the sharp end; though they can, and should, advise them about resource issues and provide unstinting support. The classic description bandied about in most collegial organizations, and quoted in one of the programmes, is that managing such people is like herding cats.
The only way to optimize decision-making in such organizations is to let the consultants jointly, peer-to-peer, make the decisions; since they are the only ones who 鈥 in this necessary anarchy 鈥 can in reality do so. The managers then must accept the role of managing, in a much more conventional way, the support services which are needed to underpin these consultants work.
Regrettably, the simplicity of this approach seems to be beyond the grasp of all those trying to win control over the medics 鈥 and the consultants just do their own thing anyway. Making improvements to the overall systems, therefore, first of all needs to recognize the realities. So far, a quarter of a century into the battle, it doesn鈥檛 seem that many involved choose to see the wood for the trees.
The Open University 鈥 which co-produced the series 鈥 is another organization which depends upon (quite literally) such collegial management. Paradoxically, despite the sophisticated expertise of its business school (OUBS) staff involved in the programme, it has recently embarked on its own battle to impose hierarchical management on its academics!
Complain about this post
JP's disdain of everything connected with the Net is probably less tiresome to those who don't use the Net to view the programme. But for those who do he is severely damaging his "brand" value.
The Geek report might have been better with less value placed upon the views of those with books to promote. Anyone who thinks their brain is anywhere but in their skull whilst they use the Net needs it examining. But the Net, as long as one can keep up to date with the machinery and one's ability to access it lasts - and losing one's home, or one's health would bring one back to the real world very sharply - can vastly expand abilities and horizons. The rapid access to knowledge, and to language translation is totally beyond value (the founders of Google and the inventors of online translation should get Nobel prizes). But I don't see any evidence that it expands the human capacity to imagine or empathise, as was suggested. Maybe it provides more opportunities to use those faculties, or maybe it induces people to use them who previously did not. But people often used to say that, with radio, the pictures were better than with film or television, because the only limit was one's own imagination, and now the pictures are often provided by game and web designers. I don't understand why Paul needed a flying avatar to have an online discussion with some people from IBM, unless it was to provide some visual content. There wasn't all that much inagination stretching involved was there, given that Paul flys all sorts of places, and visited the IBM research building in real-life too?
Complain about this post
The NHS section was interesting but limited. I had missed the three programme series upon which it was based and guess I'll have to go looking for it now, but, just from what was on Newsnight, I'd be concerned if changes to the NHS were to be made for the reasons stated.
Yes, NHS management is sometimes very poor, but tripling salaries (a management tool which has led to huge greed), or, as a surgeon in the clip suggested, insisting they have as many degrees as any of those they manage, are false solutions. They need to really know what they are doing, not be pressed into making decisions without that information, or be too easily influenced by others, and they need the authority to make employees with superiority complexes or collective muscle listen.
Yes, surgeons and consultants do throw their weight around, but sometimes it is right - such as when they are standing up for their patients - and sometimes it is not. In the past the head of nursing, the matron, had the authority to stand up to them if she judged it unfair, and to do much else beside, but matrons got abolished, and the recent replacements seem to have little impact. Nursing, and patient care, has mainly gone severely downhill as a result. Consultants are certainly not to be considered the final arbiters, whose work should simply be facilitiated by everyone else. The patient's interests are supposed to come first, and consultants can sometimes have very unbalanced views, centred entirely on their own beliefs, or their own professional interests (as the Bristol babies inquiry found, so devastatingly), in their own speciality.
The point about unused operating theatres whilst are on waiting lists needs taking further, as it could show a huge weakness in the managment theory of the NHS - operating as a market with retailer-like PCT's buying from medical units, like hospitals, whilst the funding is overall, and the basic goal - maximising customer health - is in common. Or it might have been a demonstration of a hospital unjustly passing the buck, blaming the NHS system rather than telling the truth. In effect undermining the NHS.
The PCT in this case was said to not have the money to pay for enough procedures a week to empty the waiting list, but the NHS was still paying for the operating theatres, and presumably most of the staff. So if the money the hospital was paying out for no work were tranferred to the accounts of the PCT, which then commisioned the work and the procedures were done, and the waiting list emptied, and the money paid to the hospital, wouldn't only the same money be spent? Isn't that an accounting screw-up? I.e. some misconceived procedure at top-level management, not local?
Or maybe there was a different explanation: that the surgeons were seeing patients in wards or consulting rooms, and Friday was the day the theatres were unused because operating then would mean patients might be recovering in the wards on Saturdays, when staff want to be home with their families and are more expensive, but many patients and their employeers might prefer the treatment?
I noticed it wasn't questioned that the theatres were unused at weekends or at night. Now that might be because more money would be needed to emply extra staff to use the facilities during those times. I would like to see a study - done by proper cost accountants - of just how much it would cost to run weekend or night shifts in facilities that are otherwise unused, some of which were very expensive - such as scanners. Not to mention the 6,000 consultants we are told have largely been trained at public expense and have no work to do.
Complain about this post
GEEK WEEK:
Really enjoying Geek Week on NN
The representation of the real world in the virtual world & the changing nature of relationships is fascinating.
It's social networking albeit by interactive representations, in these medium, restrictions/barriers such as wealth, age, status, relationship, location & education are largely negated, as people engage in online activities & identities & are primarily judged by the competency of their interactions.
Q. to what purpose you may ask?
BACKGROUND:
People say our parents generation (baby boomers) do not readily relate to the use & reliance of technology (videos, dvds, digital kit) & ICT (computers, mobiles etc) in their lives, beyond the basics (if at all).
Would argue, that equally, too many classed as the children of the baby boomers typically aged 30+ do not get the next logical extension of technology i.e. virtual world & relationships/representations.
The children of baby boomers, may use technology of the 1st Generation & 2nd Generation but like their parents face an impasse, when it comes too finding value & use of 3rd Generational developments, unlike the younger generations.
1st Generation: Hardware
- its become the norm of home & business, main changes in power & size & cost, accompanied by emergent basic software apps.
2nd Generation: Software
- basic to intermediate forms of functionality, that鈥檚 tied too & running parallel to the development of hardware but is somewhat limited by such.
3rd Generation: Beyondware
- developments in Hardware is somewhat taken for granted.
- developments in software similarly becomes an enabler & a norm
- interconnectivity (speed & cost) taken for granted.
- what changes is that a user ROLE based PARTICIPATIVE model becomes prevalent *
* people finding value in not only spending limited time in SOCIAL NETWORKING (in whatever form) but claim & derive value in these virtual representation & relationships.
THE FUTURE:
Fast forwarding ... lets pretend its become desirable & possible that we can all link up (voluntarily) MATRIX-LITE (perhaps the ulitmate 'pay as you go' opportunity)
What we do, what we are willing to pay for & the value we find in & our willingness to committ limited & valuable TIME becomes ALL
Option (1) inhabit the real world in full consciousness & carry out a limited number of activities. Reliance on technology is discretionary & if mandatory typically pretty limited purposes & time spent.
Option (2) inhabit the virtual world, weighted to mental interaction & engagement (perhaps some part physical) carrying out a number of activities (at present mostly recreational)
Option (3) a half & half existence, physically existing but wired up, carrying out former real world activities (creation, composition to teaching & learning to鈥. admin/bureaucracy duties) in a virtual world settings, the activity & form reminiscent of virtual GAME / RECREATIONAL play
Option (4) ID Evolution i.e. people prefer to stayed wired up & live their life or lives of their virtual representation/s **
** esp the disadvantaged: sick, disabled, elderly, depressed, unemployed, even prisoners 鈥. etc
SUMMARY:
Very early days & could wax lyrical for ages, but still getting fully immersed in this NEO-VIRTUAL culture & need to replicate some lessons learnt & test some observations made.
But what should be remembered is that as virtual enablers (the joined up means to do it via h/w, s/w connectivity etc) become the norm - here on in ---> CONTENT IS KING
Well done NN ... pretty cutting edge subject to take to any audience.
On par with in-depth discussions on NN into politics & society etc (as opposed to alternative to just skimming the surface as is the norm in most media).
漏 2007 vikingar
Complain about this post
David Mercer wrote: "...in the early 1980s, hospitals were run by the consultants ... it worked, and worked well 鈥 to the extent that it was then probably the most efficient in the world and at least twice as efficient as that of the US. ... the situation a quarter of a century on is largely unchanged; though the efficiency has been undermined by the managers ...In reality they can never control those (consultants) who alone know that is needed at the sharp end... The only way to optimize decision-making in such organizations is to let the consultants jointly, peer-to-peer, make the decisions..."
Sorry to disagree but amongst huge, and very beneficial changes that you seem to have missed are that that discrimination has been reduced, there are now ethics committees to prevent such horrors as the Bristol babies cases - which was, in effect surgeons doing their own thing - and waiting times have been slashed - in cases decimated - until now they are within sight of being acceptable, with a few exceptions that devious consultants, who think patients should either wait or see them privately, manage to get through the net. But nursing morale and quality, and hospital cleanliness have plummeted. Also vast sums are being wasted on IT systems and most everyone is worried about their privacy, which are national issues.
One speciality I know has seen surgical waiting times cut from 5 years - which had been the case since the 1960s - to 5 months, in the lifetime of this government.
But I know two regional centres where people have been on waiting lists for waiting lists for over 7 years for a first appointment, even though their published perfomance figures say no one waits more than 3 months. And there are several specialities where much more needs to be done. Ear, Nose and Throat departments, for example, which are almost always headed by surgeons who then place almost no priority on cases not involving surgery - like infections, which are often chronic, or hearing loss, or speech therapy. The staff who specialise in those areas have no clout compared to surgeons, especially if they are young and female, as many are.
Complain about this post
It was interesting to hear Robinson's comments on the NHS.I believe he had considerable experience of the private health care sector in the late eighties through his first public company,although strangely this was not mentioned.
One point it may be worth mentioning is the regrettable wastage of NHS money by the public itself.Failure to meet hospital appointments is at a staggering 33 per cent in some parts of London,and I am mystified as to why more is not done to rectify this situation.
Complain about this post
Perhaps my memory plays me false but wasn't it Mr.Robinson who once argued that the minimum wage should be applied in a different way in the Leisure Industry,because waitresses might be expected to rely on tips? I am not sure that the culture of big business translates easily into the public sector and I think a lot of nurses might be tempted to leave their jobs in this kind of working environment.
Complain about this post
The new strategy explained in absolutely clear terms by The King of Oppositeland!
Enjoy!
xx
ed
Complain about this post
Well said, CollectedEric
This is the pits of infantilism, making people living in dreary housing estates in Tamworth think they've reached heaven. It is a recipe for technology fetish and worship, plus living a life of total fantasy, devoid of responsibility and interaction with real people.
Newsnight has a blind spot when it comes to technology. When it's reporting a war or a new medicine, its reporters usually look at the consequences of developments. This isn't permitted for reporting about the internet, where the desire to get down with the kids overrules
Complain about this post