Here are four of the comments made by Panel members about Gordon Brown's record of wastefulness...
"Plug away at his failure to produce results for all the money spent on health and education."
"Attack his record on the economy and the huge increases made under this government in the number of civil servants/ bureaucrats/ hospital 'managers' the vast majority of which do more harm than good. Also the ridiculous amount of paperwork many of the public services have been budened with over the past 9 years must also be countered."
"Don't fight on the amount that's spent, but on how that amount is spent. The large and Brown-created body of public servants will be less antagonised by this but then how likely are they to vote conservative anyway, while most people are fed up to their back teeth with dirty hospital wards but brand, spanking new hospital offices for administrators."
"Highlight all reports of extra spending not leading to better results eg truancy, teenage pregnancy."
Most Conservatives agree that Gordon Brown is wasteful but there are many types of waste. Here are a few I thought of...
- Spending recklessly/ extravagantly - The trees in Portcullis House of Parliament spring to mind. They cost hundreds of pounds and were they a good use of money?
- Spending on white elephants - The Millenium Dome has to be the best example of a very expensive and useless project.
- Spending without reform - Billions have been put into the nation's schools and hospitals but the money has not been used to lubricate difficult reforms like more flexible pay arrangements and real parent/ patient choice.
- Spending on ineffective things - The New Deal's record at getting people into sustained employment is much inferior and more expensive than voluntary sector groups like Tomorrow's People.
- Spending on the wrong things - Windfarms spring to mind. It's a very expensive form of renewable energy. Wouldn't the money have been better spent on energy conservation or even, dareIsay it, nuclear power?
- Spending on bureaucracy - Regional Assemblies. An explosion of special advisers...
For more see Lee Rotherham's Platform piece. Lee is author of The Bumper Book of Government Waste.
I think this smacks a little of gesture politics though.
What I want to see is conservatives forcing more substantive arguments into the mainstream as we will always lose the superficial ones.
Posted by: wasp | March 23, 2006 at 16:11
nothing to add about the money. Brown is the most boring uncharismatic politician of all time. I am so sick of his ugly face, his love of himself, his hatred of businessmen and most people.
He's condemned millions to poevrty in old age by preventing funds from being allowed to keep surpluses, then taxing pension fund incomes and forcing pension funds to buy gilts and sell equities when they were at a 30 year low.
Is he regretful? Has he even noticed? No he likes destroying our wealth. It makes him more powerful over us. Remember he sold half our gold reserves at $200 an ounce in 2000. Gold is now $550 an ounce.
He hasn't an ounce of intuition, common sense, ability or interest in anyone other than himslef and his pathetic ego problem. Why the hell is the idiot still there after ten years? This is the ultimate failure of the Blair years. They've destroyed the Thatcher legacy which was earned with so much effort. Please can someone do the decent thing? Buy him a retirement home in the Maldives and pray for ..............
Posted by: mac | March 23, 2006 at 16:49
I don't agree with the premise that Labour haven't changed things in the NHS and schools - medical professionals haven't been able to stop and think with the scale of changes and waste they have wrought. In fact, I think the opposite is the problem - too many changes and not enough money going to front line services.
This is my issue with Brown:
Imagine the amount of power he will wield in number 10. He already controls most of expenditure from number 11 - and he won't relinquish that when he moves next door. My guess is that he will have more individual power in the UK than any other PM. Look at the pig's ear he's made of the tax system and imagine what will happen when he starts mucking around with welfare, education and the NHS. There will be pointless complication and micromanagement and massive waste. He can't deliver on productivity in the private or public sector. PFI is the right idea, but once again, appallingly wasteful and badly executed.
This control freakery means that he will back all the religious hatred, ID card and glorification of terror stuff, so we won't see any respite there.
He'll have the full support of the Labour party during his honeymoon period, and all his measures will get through.
I didn't think I'd say this, but I hope Blair stays in power as long as possible before the next election.
Posted by: True Blue | March 23, 2006 at 17:35
True Blue
Agree - it's his micromanagement and complexity which causes the waste. Too many changes, driven centrally allowing little local autonomy in application.
Stelzers web log (sorry to quote again but except for last line its a fantastic damning indictement of Brown) is great on waste:
"It was certainly arguable ten years ago that Britain’s infrastructure was in need of major investment. If that meant higher taxes, that might be a price worth paying for bringing the public services up to snuff. It was also obvious that such investment would provide value for money only if the public services were reformed. Brown poured in the money, but decided not to reform the NHS, with the predictable result that the spending did not produce proportionate gains in the quality of services. Which means that David Cameron had it right when he accused the Chancellor when he accused Brown of squandering billions of pounds. "
Posted by: Ted | March 23, 2006 at 19:12
"The Millenium Dome has to be the best example of a very expensive and useless project. "
Indeed....but not of one funded by govt taxation.
"Spending recklessly/ extravagantly - The trees in Portcullis House of Parliament spring to mind. They cost hundreds of pounds and were they a good use of money"
Out of a govt budget of hundreds of billions of pounds, I don't think they will result in a rush of public protest votes.
"Billions have been put into the nation's schools and hospitals but the money has not been used to lubricate difficult reforms like more flexible pay arrangements and real parent/ patient choice."
Whats all this with choice? I accept it may have a roll to play in education at 2ndary level, but patient choice?? I don't hear a clamour for it. Surely they only choice people want is to be better not sick. It really is as simple as that.
Posted by: comstock | March 23, 2006 at 20:35
They've destroyed the Thatcher legacy which was earned with so much effort
So true, and yet in all the polls a majority of people think he's done a good job.
Quite how this smoke and mirrors trick has been sustained for so long is a mystery, but even the supreme being of rational thought, Jeff Randall, says he was sucked in in 1997 and it took a while to wake up to what was going on.
Posted by: kingbongo | March 23, 2006 at 20:36
comstock
- its choice of provider not just giving user choice. The Education Bill was about enabling a diversity of school provision - LEA, Trust, Faith, Commercial (non profit). The NHS free at point of provision doesn't mean the NHS as sole provider and employer, it means enabling private companies to provide clinics, hospitals etc within the NHS structure.
Posted by: Ted | March 23, 2006 at 21:06
"Out of a govt budget of hundreds of billions of pounds, I don't think they will result in a rush of public protest votes."
That is merely one example. The TPA have documented loads of insane spending schemes. That said, most of these "insane" examples add up to only £1 billion. A lot, but not enough to start proposing major cuts. Instead we should look at the other £81-82 billion that is wasted.
Posted by: Richard | March 23, 2006 at 21:31
Whats all this with choice? I accept it may have a roll to play in education at 2ndary level, but patient choice??
If you're sceptical about choice, I don’t understand why do you make the distinction between secondary and primary education?
As for healthcare, it is pie in the sky to believe that all health districts can offer equal quality care for every illness. It’s also simplistic to assume that there’s only one correct treatment for each disease. Choices are made every day, and they should be decided by patients and doctors according to preference, clinical need and resources. If the consultant 200 miles away is, in my opinion, best suited to treat me and, in the consultant’s opinion, they are in a position to help, why would anybody introduce a barrier? Our choices should not be limited because the government doesn’t have the ingenuity to allow the money to follow the patient across an arbitrary district boundary. Nor should they be limited because some people have the skewed view that private profit is evil but public waste is OK.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 23, 2006 at 21:35
Out of a govt budget of hundreds of billions of pounds, I don't think they will result in a rush of public protest votes.
That's precisely the "drop in the ocean" attitude that results in an ocean of waste. Have you never heard of counting the pennies?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 23, 2006 at 21:38
"The NHS free at point of provision doesn't mean the NHS as sole provider and employer, it means enabling private companies to provide clinics, hospitals etc within the NHS structure"
Again, we are here, but can people not see the *fundamental* difference between consumer goods provided by the market and public services provided by the state on the basis of need? Can people not see that private companies are (shock-horror) there to make a profit, not provide the best care possible. Honestly, there *really* is no demand for choice or market forces of any sort in the NHS beyond blogs like this. The free market is great, but it doesn't belong here Please take my word for it.
I fear there is nowhere to go, discussion wise. This blog (which I will continue to read, because I have to admit it's well done) has really reaffirmed my support for Labour at a time (post Iraq) I was unsure.
Posted by: comstock | March 23, 2006 at 21:39
"If you're sceptical about choice, I don’t understand why do you make the distinction between secondary and primary education?"
Because education gets more specialised as a child gets older, and by the time they are 11 parents and teachers would have a better idea what sort of school would suit a childs abilities and interests.
Now personally I'm against 'choice'-I think it is a phoney god, and I'd go for comprehensives (with setting by ability you may be surprised to hear!) with rigid catchments taking in a mixture of rich and poor aeras. But I accept there is a demand for choice at secondary level and I am in the minority (and don't have kids anyway so I should really stay out of it :D )
But in health care people just want to get better. Honest!
Posted by: comstock | March 23, 2006 at 21:47
Now personally I'm against 'choice'-I think it is a phoney god
You presume to know what's best for my children better than I do and you underestimate the role of primary education.
But in health care people just want to get better. Honest!
Yes, which is why they want the choice to go to the place that can help them best.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 23, 2006 at 23:51
kingbongo, I have to answer you in batty old trout mode! The god of smoke and mirrors is Neptune, currently in Aquarius, as is Tony Blairs moon, so good old neptune is covering his back at the moment, also the nulab back as they have around 4 planets in Aquarius, being started 12 feb 1906. Neptune moves out of range for tony, end of 2007 ish. I dont have an ephemeris on my desk, and I have just the one computer, so the astro stuff is out of reach. Its getting more and more fascinating to see just how long the smoke and mirror effect holds out against all the corruption. Having said that though, Neptune also rules deceit! If you dont scoff too much, I'll tell you about it in more depth.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 24, 2006 at 00:20
comstock
--“Again, we are here, but can people not see the *fundamental* difference between consumer goods provided by the market and public services provided by the state on the basis of need?”
Yes there are plenty of differences between consumer goods and public services. Goods are tangible and services are not? ;)
However, there are many similarities like, goods and services (public and private) are subject to consumers demand (need)... and are consumed / experienced within the market place... (rather than provided by the market...) And, yes, both of them, are provided on the basis of need (unless you are telling me that there are companies out there forcing consumption without any demand for it!?)
As far as consumers are concerned, once they made their choice, the *fundamental*, and only difference ought to be the source of funding. However, this should have no effect on their final service perception, as most probably, their free choice has been made based on expected service quality...
I can assure you that people here clearly understand the difference between public and private sector services (I believe this is the comparison you were really talking about?)
Nevertheless, NHS stands for the National Health Service and this doesn’t imply that it needs to be delivered / experienced within state owned premises... The key phrase here is the “national service” and as such it is expected to be free / subsidised, even if outsourced to a private provider.
--“Can people not see that private companies are (shock-horror) there to make a profit, not provide the best care possible.”
Well, how a company (private or public) would be able to make and sustain any level of profits without providing the best possible service (care)?
--“Honestly, there *really* is no demand for choice or market forces of any sort in the NHS beyond blogs like this.”
Now you’re talking! You see that’s the problem! Free market forces have been gradually squeezed out of the NHS - all with good intentions but nevertheless, harmful results. Once we re-introduce the basic consumer rights back to this market the natural healing process should kick in.
Ok, there are no clearly visible ‘profits’ in the state funded services, as there are no markup on their provision and, in theory, we receive them at their base costs. But please think how profits are realised in any type of business. Wouldn’t you say that this is achieved by reducing costs and increasing productivity i.e. optimising the use of given resources? The fact that the NHS and similar are not reporting ‘profits’ as we know them it doesn’t mean that there is no demand for free consumers and market forces!
My apologies for this too-long post but it is quite upsetting when people recycle empty comments without evaluating fundamentals.
Posted by: Aga | March 24, 2006 at 01:47
Comstock completely misunderstands the concept of choice.
As long as any public service is in the control of central government and not its users, it will be badly run.
Every single state owned company that was privatised, went on to provide a better service at cheaper cost and made a profit.
There is so much waste and peverse incentives in any public service that a more logical method of organisation will lead to better service and lower costs even if someone is extracting a profit.
As for your assertion that there is no great clamour for choice, that may be so. But there is no other way of improving public services. If the Great British Public wake up to this reality, the clamour will get very great indeed.
Posted by: EU Serf | March 24, 2006 at 08:07
If you dont scoff too much, I'll tell you about it in more depth.
Annabel
Now I'm torn between the desire to find out more about your skills in astrology and my desire to take the mickey - it's an impossible choice :-)
Posted by: kingbongo | March 24, 2006 at 08:10
But in health care people just want to get better. Honest!
Indeed, and the point is thaty consumer choice is a means of driving up standards and delivering better services. It presumes that the people who actually use services are better able to determine what meets their needs than some distant bureaucrat.
Posted by: James Hellyer | March 24, 2006 at 09:07
You're wrong Serf.The railways are a good example.On every conceivable indicator the vast majority of train companies are providing worse service levels than British Rail did and are receiving more public subsidy for doing so!
All that's happened is that in most cases a state monopoly has been replaced by a private monopoly.
Posted by: malcolm | March 24, 2006 at 11:03
Too much to answer, but I'll pick out one line by aga
"think how profits are realised in any type of business. Wouldn’t you say that this is achieved by reducing costs and increasing productivity"
I can see how you would measure productivity in a car plant-number of cars made a day (which is why I fully admit nationalised car production was a disaster) but how do we assess productivity in the NHS? How do we measure it when treating somebody with terminal cancer, or severe depression.
How can you meaningfully assess costs when benefits are something which can't be measured in pounds and pence??
Posted by: comstock | March 24, 2006 at 11:56
Kingbongo! If you are going to Manchester for spring conference, I can show show you clearly what is afoot. I am a mere certificate holder, but the Faculty has a gold medallist who accurately forecast the start of the Iraq fiasco. He also said it would be like wading through treacle(neptune influence) UK embroiled in a far bigger mess than Blair would appear to have anticipated... It goes on, and all written at the end of 2002, in the astrologers journal Jan 2003. I will pop aforementioned mag in my bag in case I run into you, then the scoffing can stop! Oh! and another bright lad has written(july 2004) an article Neptune and Tony Blair which is where I get my data from. I am ticking off events as they happen. The article also possits that Brown will end up as "tailend charlie after all" So there is light at the end of.. have faith! Not this next general, the one after. Browns transits are too good for 2009 ish. The cosmos circles onwards. and leaves nulab behind after 2011 ish. Of course, the reading could be taken another way. What if Blair gets chucked out before 2007/8, but gets a health problem then instead. We aint fortune tellers, we read sky maps. Just like the iraqies 5000 years ago!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 24, 2006 at 12:14
Annabel - you could get a job advising Tony Blair!
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 24, 2006 at 13:10
Hello all,
Here's my view (from the City): Every Labour government will sooner or later run out money. This is as inevitable as night follows the day. The key question is when rather than why?
The answer is in the bond market. Labour consensus is that Gordon Brown has taken the tax revenue to the limit of public tolerance, so the profligate spending plans must come from borrowing – and this is CHEAP as the chips at the moment. For example, government can borrow 50 year gilts and paying 3.80ish in yield – that’s as free as money goes.
I’m afraid the even expanding state sector will keep expanding into the foreseeable future…
Posted by: Andy | March 24, 2006 at 13:35
"For example, government can borrow 50 year gilts and paying 3.80ish in yield"
Hi, Andy, could you explain what that means, please? I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in this.
Posted by: comstock | March 24, 2006 at 13:48
comstock
There are measures for the operation of a health service in absolute terms - survival rates for cancer, heart ops,the infant mortality rate as well as performance measures in terms of waiting times (which affect quality of life and survaval rates).
When there is a more diverse selection of hosptials - e.g.France, Germany - the performance metrics are better.
It is the case that the UK is not among the best on most measures of survival or even infant mortality rates. On the latter for example the UK neo natal rate is (<4weeks) at 3.9 per 1000 births average is higher than Germany at 1.4 so for every 10000 brths 25 more children die in UK compared with Germany.
Choice is not about introducing the market its about moving from an inefficient centrally directed supply side model to one offering a diverse more locally managed model. It could be that some health providers are privately owned, others could be charities or not for profit organisations, others trust hospitals.
This might introduce a cost overhead as in a choice driven patient centric model there will be redundancy in supply - but that drives down waiting times because central planning is inflexible to enable responsiveness.
In the end the real choice is about continuing a model which does not deliver world class services or introducing changes that drive up performance.
Posted by: Ted | March 24, 2006 at 14:44
Got to disagree, Ted.
The NHS is not the best, but it is one of the most efficient. Spending has historically been below average per capita, and most outcomes above average.
Life expetancy is about the same as other bigger-spending European countries and much better than the vastly inflated overspending American model.
The UK changed the way they measured infant mortality in 1993 by including all foetuses from 24 weeks gestation - other nations include only 28 weeks on, and in the US, Canada and some Nordic countries, very premature babies with a low chance of survival are registered as live births. This has skewed the figures a little.
The more money that is spent privately in a health service, the less efficient it is - that is because health provision requires a central planning and the open sharing of knowledge and techniques in order to function. The profit motive simply doesn't work in this case.
Expenditure on the NHS is now at a reasonable level. Mucking around with PFI, attempting to shoehorn ridiculous market discipline and competition into something which should be inherently cooperative introduces paperwork and inefficiency.
The "patient as customer" model fails, too. For example, patients might want a 15 minute appointment with a doctor, but it might be that a brusk 10 minute appoinment with each patient with no chat actually gives the best overall health outcome. This is the area where the alternative/orthodox battle is being fought. The public health model is don't offer treatment which isn't proven to work, the patient as customer model says "patients want acupuncture, let's give it to them."
Posted by: passing leftie | March 24, 2006 at 17:17
The health service is at it's best in an emergency and thank god it is there for those emergencies for the poorest in our nation.
However when your local hospital is a zero star or a one star because of serious deficiencies; when the staff ratios are insufficient for decent patient care; when the food's so bad you can't eat it even though you need to build your strength up; when no one has time to wash your hair or help you to the shower/bath; when you are kicked out the day after a tonsillectomy and palate surgery or just four days after a hip replacement do you call that the best overall health outcome considering what we all pay?
I've heard the service in the private sector is deteriorating due to the influx of large numbers of NHS paid operations, so for the sake of profits care stays are reduced so that they both can increase the number of operations performed in a week to meet the offical targets on waiting lists.
Posted by: a-tracy | March 24, 2006 at 17:55
a-tracy,
We get very good value for health, but we don't spend that much. If you want to see the alternative, look at the States, where they spend twice as much with appalling over all results which dependent on wealth.
Your comments show exactly why using a customer-centered, complaint-driven health policy is a very bad idea. There are literally billions of interactions between patients and health care professionals, and statistically there are likley to be errors. It's of course these bad outcomes that people remember.
You are complaining about someone who has had hip surgery being kicked out of hospital quickly, and ignoring that hip surgery waiting lists have been slashed. You save money where you can.
Measuring health care outcomes with ridiculous star ratings as if they were hotels is idiotic.
I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the injection of cash has really improved the ratio of medical staff to patients.
If you really want to see the NHS functioning brilliantly well as well as efficiently, agree to tax increases which take our health expenditure up to French, German, or even American levels. We are too tight, and that's not going to happen.
I agree with you about the food.
Posted by: passing leftie | March 24, 2006 at 18:15
Dont think so Mark! It is really difficult to read a sky map if one is partisan. You see what you want to see, not what the pattern is actually saying. Did you ever read of the very eminent astro who the 1939 Govt (I think) commisioned to keep an eye on the sky bacause they had heard Hitler had an astro. Didnt work did it! Poor bloke was a bit of a pacifist himself, and knew that the Govt was too. Read it all wrong. The stro charts for then are really amazing. How could he not know war was coming. The reason why I reckon my astro aquaintences may be on to something, is that they are a couple of total anarchists, self confessed, and go with NO party! But its fun trying.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 24, 2006 at 18:22
PS Typo!! I meant Astro charts.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 24, 2006 at 18:31
"I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the injection of cash has really improved the ratio of medical staff to patients."
I'm not getting figures from anywhere other than what my family and I have seen over the past three years, and I used the reasons we were given as to why friends of ours weren't being bathed or having their hair washed. The excuses to why a poor old chap at the end of the ward wasn't been attended to after he wet himself. The service my friend received when he was refused admittance at the weekend because there wasn't a bed and he wasn't considered seriously ill enough and once home had a relapse and sat in his chair overnight unable to move, unable to get to a phone to call for help, unable to empty his urine bag which overflowed, he died a week later septicemia in his blood which wasn't there in the blood test the previous Saturday when his family tried to get his illness taken seriously. An uncle who whilst in hospital last year had his hearing aid, glasses and false teeth misplaced.
Do you think we aren't paying enough or that there aren't enough of us paying in (too many economically inactive, an increase in students then not paying national insurance, too many claimants on welfare, treating too many visitors who aren't paying, oh and we're living far longer - do you think those working among us should be the only ones to pay - visitors wouldn't get treated in the States or in many other countries without travel insurance is it only us Brits that have to pay up when travelling?)
Finally regarding your comment about kicking people out after operations to save money where you can - I thought we were being told that billions more had been spent from raising our national insurance contributions both as employees and employers, does post op care no longer count as medical care? I wonder how many of these people who are kicked out early suffer an earlier death than necessary or other complications resulting in a more expensive problem to solve but it wouldn't crop up in the figures then would it?
Posted by: a-tracy | March 24, 2006 at 19:28
"I've heard the service in the private sector is deteriorating due to the influx of large numbers of NHS paid operations"
When I was in the hotel business there were two types of customers: those that paid full rate on the day and those on tours where the operator paid rack rate. Did the rack rate customers get worse service? You bet.
I can see that private hospitals will give better care to people who are footing the bill themselves. Those patients are able to decide for themselves whether or not to come back. The NHS patient is on a conveyor belt where their personal experience has little influence. A cold dinner to an NHS patient isn’t going to result in lost business. It is up to the NHS to ensure that it negotiates to ensure that standards of care aren't compromised.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | March 24, 2006 at 19:30
I appreciate what you're saying Mark but isn't it true that if any business, hotel or hospital, accepts too great a proportion of 'rack' rate work that ultimately the business becomes dependent upon it to survive.
They would have to do more work for the same income return and the pressure to maintain the levels get ever greater.
I think that the Labour Party is being very clever by soaking up capacity in private healthcare hospitals they are reducing their market, increasing their dependence on the State and long term would be back under the NHS central control system.
I heard that many public sector workers are offered private healthcare insurance (I'm not sure whether through their employer or union) which does increase state influence over the private sector even further, if this were suddenly removed a large proportion of the 'private' income would disappear.
Under the old system going back a few years when private healthcare was provided in the main through insurance policies the competition for hospitals and consultants was great and the choice for the users was excellent. What you can see now is that choice is reduced because as they're filling up with 'rack' patients there's no capacity for full rate patients. The danger is that all the people stop wanting to pay for private medical (or even private schooling) it puts extra pressure and expense on the exchequer so I've never really understood why government is so opposed to private provision of state services as it saves them money.
Posted by: a-tracy | March 24, 2006 at 20:27
I have just completed the current survey. Re the question of coalition with other parties in the case of being the largest party without an overall majority, it is difficult to answer a hypothetical question. It would be necessary to know the relative size of the other parties, how this compares with the shortfall on an overall majority, and the policies of the section of the other parties which was elected.
Though a lifelong Conservative supporter, I sometimes think as a "man in the street" I would be better served by a coalition of opposing parties cancelling out each other's more extreme parties. We have suffered for too long from meddling politicians (mostly Labour but not always)who try to do too much too quickly and are making life very difficult for the rest of us.
-----
May I also draw Mr Willetts attention to "Screwtape proposes a Toast" in C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters - the section discussing the "spirit of I'm as good as you". Lewis possibly thought he was exaggerating but it seems a remarkably accurate forecast of education in Britain today, written over forty years ago.
Posted by: Trevor Fulton | May 31, 2006 at 21:44
24 Feb 2010 the Guardian reported that Burnham said: "This was an appalling failure at every level of the hospital to ensure patients received the care and compassion they deserved. There can be no excuses for this. I am accepting all of the recommendations in full and will set out a detailed response to parliament later today.
"This was ultimately a local failure, but it is vital that we learn the lessons nationally to ensure that it won't happen again – we expect everyone in the NHS to read the report and act on it. These events were unacceptable and do not reflect the experience of millions of patients that use the NHS every day or the dedication and professionalism of the majority of NHS staff."
The people I talked about in 2006 above weren't in the Stafford NHS Trust they were in another trust so how isolated and local were these issues? I don't believe that all wards are the same in all hospitals but I do think that Passing Leftie was wrong above where they say "Your comments show exactly why using a customer-centered, complaint-driven health policy is a very bad idea."
Someone senior should be listening to the customers (patients or their families) and ensuring policy is agreed that takes care of people's dignity and recovery needs whilst in hospital and not just the mechanics of their operation.
Posted by: a-tracy | February 24, 2010 at 16:40