Showing posts with label John Healey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Healey. Show all posts

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Six of the Best 141

Paula Keaveney reports back from the Liberal Democrats' Spring Conference, which was held in Sheffield this weekend.

Someone else who went to Sheffield is John Healey, Labour's shadow health spokesman. Olly Grender, writing for the New Statesman website, hopes he learned from the experience: "John Healey came with a typical 'blood up the walls' statement already prepared. Instead he found a party that is business like, considered and professional. Perhaps he can go back to his colleagues and tell them there are other ways to oppose."

This is a lesson that some of the protesters outside the conference need to learn too, argues Caron's Musings.

Mark Thompson's Blog attended what was billed as a "fair, impartial AV referendum debate" in Reading. It turned out to be a waste of his time.

Archbishop Cranmer asks why Roman Catholic priests who join the Church of England receive so much less publicity than CofE clergymen who move the other way.

Have you ever wondered how many nipples there are in the National Gallery? I know I have. Well, Londonist has the answer. "The results show that Flemish painting, as typified by Rubens, are the most nudish in European art collected by the National Gallery. However, other regions, most notably the Italian peninsula contribute a greater overall number. 274 examples of exposure can be found around the gallery, with men and women almost equally outgoing."

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Parts of the NHS are second rate

It seems it was the American journalist Michael Kinsley who first observed that a gaffe takes place when a politician inadvertently tells the truth. There is no clearer illustration of this than David Cameron's interview for the Today programme yesterday in which he said or implied or was thought to have implied that parts of the NHS offer a second-rate service.

Of course parts of the NHS offer a second-rate service.

If you doubt this, have a look at the front page of yesterday's Leicester Mercury:
Two elderly women were let down by the NHS in the care they received up until their deaths.

Today, we reveal that staff are facing disciplinary action following the treatment of 72-year-old Sylvia Densham, who died of infected bed sores while waiting for a hip replacement operation.

Leicester City NHS Community Health Service has admitted failings.

In another case, the health ombudsman has found that 92-year-old Joan Adams, who died from internal bleeding four weeks after being admitted to hospital, suffered more discomfort and distress during the last weeks of her life than was necessary because of "service failure".

Following the inquest into Mrs Densham's death, Leicester coroner Catherine Mason wrote to the Community Health Service listing her concerns over the treatment she had received.
"Second-rate" appears something of a euphemism here.

What is also telling is Labour's reaction to Cameron's interview. John Healey, one of the more able figures in the shadow cabinet, is quoted by the Daily Telegraph, as calling the prime minister's remarks "an insult to millions of NHS staff".

This is a thoroughly modern reaction: what matters is not whether something is true but whether it might cause offence to someone.

More than that, Healey's implication that the only factor that determines the quality of care received is the efforts of staff is strange. A socialist, of all people, should understand that workers can be doing their best but be poorly managed or resourced.

Besides, amongst "millions of NHS staff" there are bound to be some who are not doing their best.

The government's NHS reforms look rushed to me. But the direction of travel - making NHS services more responsive to individual and local circumstances - is one that Liberals should support.

Friday, October 08, 2010

Alan Johnson is neither Ed Balls nor married to him

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Alan Johnson has been made shadow chancellor because:
  1. he is not Ed Balls;
  2. he is not married to Ed Balls.
Still, Ed Miliband's decision to appoint does suggest that he is planning a strategy that goes beyond opposing every Coaltion spending cut. That will help the quality of political debate in Britain and will not do Labour's prospects any harm in the long run.

You can debate whether this shows Ed Miliband is strong - prepared not to give Balls and Cooper what they wants - or weak - unable to trust himself to control economic policy if he gives one of them the post to which they are most suited. I tend to the theory that it means he is weak. I am reminded of the way the England selectors used to leave out good players (John Snow, Phil Edmonds) because they might be disruptive or hard to control.

But today's events do show how odd the Labour party's internal organisation is. You have a leader who was not the preferred choice of most Labour MPs (or most Labour members, come to that) obliged to put together his Shadow cabinet from the names those MPs have come up with. More than that, he is more or less obliged to give senior positions to people who come high in the poll

So Labour ends up with Alan Johnson, a shadow chancellor who knows nothing about economics; Yvette Cooper, a shadow foreign secretary with little experience of foreign affairs; and Ed Balls, who has hitherto shown no interest in home affairs - he promises to be like Charles Clarke but without the charm.

Incidentally, once Ed Miliband had made up his mind to appoint a shadow chancellor who was not Ed Balls or married to him, John Healey might have been a better choice than Alan Johnson. Healey has a little of Vince Cable's lugubrious charm about him.