3 2 mins 9 yrs

Sir David Nicholson, Chief Commissar of the Mid-Staffs NHS Primary Slaughterhouse, today admitted “personal failings” for the 1200 innocents killed by his regime. In testimony to the House of Commons Health Select Committee, he denied that people aren’t held to account in the NHS and that he won’t be resigning to spend more time with his enormous pension. That’s accountability, apparatchik style. No, accountability is for lesser functionaries, who under Nicholson were bullied and intimidated into silence.

In fact, so keen is the one time member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (you really couldn’t make it up) to hang on, today he threw his erstwhile Labour Party comrades under the tractor. Sir David said that “national targets meant that NHS managers had to concentrate on issues like casualty waiting times and hospital “superbugs” like MRSA”, and that “during that period, across the NHS as a whole, patients were not the centre of the way the system operated.”

Well there’s the problem. It’s the collective which matters to the bureaucracy. It’s covering your parasitical arse which matters to the bureaucrat. Patients do not matter. The NHS remains a Stalinist collective driven by state-central commands. It’s all bumper turnip crops and iron ore production, not what consumers want. Until we get our minds around that simple fact there’s not the slightest thing which will change.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. To run a service along the ambitious lines of the NHS, with the intention of offering a comprehensive and personal service, is a physical impossibility.

    They can throw all the money in the Bank of England at the infrastructure, and they will still be unable to make it work. The part they don’t understand is the ‘personal’ bit. It is an unfamiliar concept to them, to replace numbers with names is difficult enough for them, but to actually have contact with real people and to relate to them in a professional fashion, is a concept that seems to give them nightmares. It just doesn’t gel with their system, where responsibilty is not a required ingredient.

    Yes, there is a core of very caring and nurturing people in the service, – but a diminishing number I believe, due to retirement. somehow, and I may be being unfair here, the newer recruits just don’t seem to have the same sense of vocation that was once the norm.

    Box ticking, quotas, writing fictional reports and generally smiling when a VIP or a reporter is on the scene, and of course that ability to take orders and ‘do as one is told’ are also among the many skills valued by ‘management’, if we are to believe what has been revealed by the latest inquiry mentioned above.

    Even when using every soul available from every corner of the globe who may be prepared to work in the ‘caring profession’ we don’t, and wont, have enough staff, let alone staff of the more skilled or traditional variety to provide anything like the service we reqire and expect from this NHS, our ‘national pride.

    Far from being what was once promised, it is now the medical equivalent of some ‘take it or leave it’, back street cut price store.

    In a personal service people are what makes the difference, they are the major asset whether it be on the front desk, on a ward, in the operating theatre, or even just emptying a bin. Until our bureacrats recognise their value we will never again have a service of which we can truly be proud.

  2. I have often declared that the major fault with the NHS (NHS’s as they now are) is that they are far too big and far too bureaucratic and, with the changes being brought about, will become even more bureaucratic and centralised. God help us because the powers that be will not listen to the people. In the Welsh case this centralisation will mean journies of up to 40/50 miles for all but the simplest treatments. We are told that one of the reasons for this is staff shortages.

  3. Wasn’t the Tories who were so keen on ‘centralisation’?

    They thought nothing of having patients travel considerable distances to have simple tests, and reduced the role of the much apprerciated local so-called ‘cottage hospitals’, where there was far more liklihood of receiving a more personal attention. The doctors and the nurses quite likely lived locally and had a reputation to keep.

    Thank you Mrs T!

Comments are closed.