Frying tonight

Have you ever seen a more pathetic rant than Stephen Fry's attack on a Daily Telegraph journalist?
http://stephen-fry-me.tumblr.com/post/61754597917/some-weasel-of-a-telegraph-journo-wants-me-to-give-up

The great exploding housing bubble

As we inflate another house-price bubble, which is bound to burst eventually, the Bank of England has taken its eye firmly off the ball.

Mark Carney, the Bank’s new governor, has said interest rates won’t go up until unemployment falls to seven per cent – unless the outlook for inflation is that it will be above 2.5 per cent in 18 months’ time.

This is a cop-out because the Bank’s “fan chart” for future inflation will cover every eventuality from 0.1 per cent to 10 per cent.

More worrying, though, is that the Bank’s target of two per cent is based on the Consumer Prices Index, a measurement of inflation which completely ignores house prices.

In an economy so dependent on home-ownership, house price inflation is very significant.

Not only does it tell us how fast house prices are rising, it is used to measure the country’s GDP and, therefore, it has a significant impact on consumer confidence.

The faster house prices rise, the more liberal people are with their money, the more they are likely to borrow and the quicker the economy grows.

This is, in many respects, all to the good. But – and it is a massive but – because the Bank doesn’t take any of this into account when setting interest rates because none of it affects CPI, the end result is that its policy ignores the elephant in the room.

If house price inflation were included in the calculation of general inflation, it is highly likely interest rates would have been higher in the mid-2000s. That would have slowed the housing market, led banks to lend less and would not have encouraged people to borrow more than they could afford, thus reducing the house-price spiral which ended up strangling the life out of the entire economy.

I am told there is no such thing as an inflation measure which includes house prices. This is because inflation measurements are based on an international standard.

But in this country the economy is much more heavily dependent on a buoyant private housing market than it is in many other European nations, where the renting your home is more prevalent.

The other reason we don’t include house prices is because statisticians regard houses as capital investments not day-to-day spending. That’s a fair point but it fails to take into account the impact – psychological as well as economic – of house-price inflation.

Mr Carney is already guilty of abandoning the remit of the monetary policy committee and prioritising unemployment – not part of his remit – above inflation.

That’s bad enough. It is made worse because, as long as the Bank fails to account for rising house prices, the inflation statistics it uses are meaningless. They have only have a passing resemblance to the real economy.

The credit crunch and the worst recession in living memory were caused by rampant house-price inflation which was allowed to go unchecked by the Bank because it was aiming at the wrong target. It seems nobody has learned from this terrible mistake.

 

Mortgaging the future

If anyone thinks the Government debt is manageable, think again. Unless they give inflation a massive boost by printing lots of money – and impoverishing us at the same time – I reckon it will take almost 900 years to pay off.

I woke up at 5am worrying about it and I did the sums.

GDP in the UK is £1,580 billion (2012-13). Government revenue is £600 billion (2012-13). Government revenue represents 37.5 per cent of GDP.

To meet its spending commitments, the Government borrowed an extra £85.1 billion (at least; the Centre for Economics and Business Research puts the figure at £120 billion).

A one percent increase in GDP generates £6 billion of Government revenue. 

All other things being equal (no tax rises, no spending cuts, no inflation) to reduce annual borrowing to zero, the Government would need GDP growth in one year of 14.2 per cent (14.2 x £6 billion = £85.2 billion). 

Clearly that is impossible in more or less any circumstances. Despite annual fluctuations, the long-term trend is for the UK’s GDP to increase at an annual rate of two per cent. 

On that basis, if all the Government’s proceeds of growth were used to repay debt, it would be able to reduce its borrowings by £12 billion a year. At that rate, it would take seven years before the Government no longer had to borrow money to make ends meet. 

However, during that period the total amount of debt would continue to rise, but a little more slowly each year. The debt would increase by £344 billion to £1,544 billion. 

If the Government continued to repay money at the same rate (£12 billion a year) once it had ceased to borrow any more, the total debt would be wiped out in a further 128 years. This assumes the same interest payments are made throughout the period at three per cent. In fact, payments would gradually reduce and therefore the repayment period would be shorter. 

Still, with no increase in State spending, no tax cuts or rises and no inflation, and two per cent GDP growth, it would take the Government about 100 years to wipe out its debt.

However, it is impossible to envisage this Government, never mind successive Governments way into the future, willing to impose such discipline on itself.

Despite all the talk of “cuts”, in 2012 Government spending actually grew at the rate of 1.6 per cent. On the basis that this rate of spending growth is the bare minimum a Government - and an electorate - is prepared to put up with, it follows that, at a GDP growth rate of two per cent, the State has only 0.4 per cent of its proceeds to devote to paying down its debt. 

A borrowing reduction of 0.4 per cent of GDP is £2,336 million. 

At that rate, it would take the State 36 years to reach the point where it no longer needs to borrow money. In that time, however, the total debt would have increased by about £1,272 billion bringing the total Government debt to £2.5 trillion. 

If, at that point, the Government continued to increase spending at no more than 1.6 per cent per year on average and UK GDP remained at two per cent, the total debt mountain would start to be cleared at a rate of £2,336 million (£2.3 billion) a year. 

Actually this would increase as GDP rose so let’s be generous and assume tis has miraculously increased to £3 billion. 

In that case, the number of years it would take to wipe out the debt completely is: £2,500 billion/£3 billion = 833 years to which we must add the 36 years it will take before we no longer need to borrow any money. 

In other words, it will never be wiped out. 

Which explains why today’s politicians have no intention of tackling the debt seriously. It’s not their problem. It’s our bequest to future generations. We are mortgaging the future for generations to come.

IMF - International Monetary Frauds

The good news is that we’re not in a triple-dip recession. The bad news is that even the IMF is calling for a U-turn.

The truth is the economy is still shackled to the Eurozone where the only winner is Germany.

George Osborne is right to reduce Government debt – though he could cut harder and faster – but until the Euro is put out of its misery, things won’t improve very quickly whatever anybody does.

And the IMF is to blame for propping up the failed currency union.

A very English crowd for Lady Thatcher's funeral

Where I was standing close to St Paul's the most remarkable thing about the funeral of Margaret Thatcher was how polite everyone was. Even the demonstrators were courteous. 

You couldn't see a thing but everyone was offering advice and help on where to stand and where the funeral cortège had got to.

A thick-set Asian bloke with a banner turned to bloke in trainers and asked everso politely: 'Excuse me are you with the protesters?'

The man turned and replied, equally politely, 'Yes.'

'Where are they?'

'I don't know.'

At that point, a small woman from an Italian TV station turned to first bloke accompanied by her cameraman and asked: 'What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Margaret Thatcher?’

Without a moment’s hesitation he replied: ‘Iron Lady. Because she thought more about her image than the people of Britain.’

Here we had a little demonstration of what is best in Britain - politeness, softly-spoken dissent, freedom of speech. Even in an overwhelmingly Thatcherite crowd, nobody batted an eyelid as this would-be protestor made his views know, albeit to Italian TV viewers.

Elsewhere, there was a posh-sounding lady banging on about how terrible the Freemasons are. At one point she said they should be branded so we could all recognise them. I also saw some bloke with a 'welcome to pig vomit city' banner.

But it was all peaceful, respectful, even good-humoured though nobody anywhere near where I stood, at the end of Ludgate Hill not far from the cathedral steps, could see anything.

It was all a bit of a waste of time really but most of those near me seemed happy to play their part as also-ran onlookers, admirers and mourners to give her a decent send-off.

As the service began and I was leaving, a man with a megaphone declaimed: 'Please get back to work. You were not invited which probably means you are not important. Oh! Somebody called me the C-word or was he offering me some?’

Respect, humour, tolerance, solemnity, calm - the English way of death.

The liberation of the nation

Today’s young entrepreneurs won’t remember what life was like in Mrs Thatcher’s day let alone in the years before she became Prime Minister. But if you are trying to run a small business today then you have a lot to thank her for.

When Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain was “the sick man of Europe”. The country was run by the diktat of militant trade union leaders.

You could hardly take enough money abroad to pay for a week’s holiday on the Costa del Sol while access to finance was a massive joke – if you even wanted a mortgage you had to join a six-month waiting list.

Mrs Thatcher transformed the business environment. She welcomed new businesses and entrepreneurs capable of working hard, generating jobs and creating wealth.

It was necessary because she inherited a vast, unproductive lump of loss-making nationalised industries: steel mills, car companies, coal mines and shipyards which employed thousands of people but could not make a penny profit.

There are many obstacles to creating a successful new business. But until Mrs Thatcher came along to de-regulate and free the market, it was virtually impossible for all but the luckiest and most determined because “the State” ran the country.

Today, the obstacles can be overcome – just ask a Business Advice Service chartered accountant. In the 1970s and 1980s, they were often insuperable.

Mrs Thatcher gave us a modern, flexible, dynamic economy. She created the climate which allowed businesses to grow and prosper. If you’re in business today, you are almost certainly benefiting from the decisions she took way back in the 1980s.

And she would be the first to congratulate you on your success.

·         Cranks corner – the Government is now making it easier for nutters of all persuasions to take action against employers who refuse them time off to attend Druid festivals or Mayday celebrations. This from a Government pledged to reducing red tape to make life easier for small businesses.

We name the guilty men

The people who should be ignored when commenting on Mrs Thatcher:

Nigel Lawson: Tried to shadow the Deutschmark in preparation for Britain joining the European exchange rate mechanism, forerunner to the Euro. Got it horribly wrong and couldn’t bear the fact that Mrs Thatcher was right on the issue so he stormed out in a huff. Damaged only his own reputation, which has never recovered.

Geoffrey Howe: Made the speech which precipitated Michael Heseltine’s challenge to her leadership. Madly pro-EU ex-Chancellor who thought he was cleverer than he actually was and acted out of hurt personal pride not political principle. A self-satisfied weasel rather than a dead sheep.

Michael Heseltine: The ego finally landed when he mounted his unsuccessful challenge for the Tory leadership but couldn’t win. Motivated by personal pride, pique and ridiculous ambition. Another politician undone by his unthinking support for the European Union. His overwhelming vanity would have been a disaster for Britain.

Ken Clarke: Bluff, good-ole-boy who twisted in the knife when she was down but not quite out by telling her that, despite owing his whole career to her, he would not support her in a second leadership ballot and thought she should resign rather than contest it. “She said I was being defeatist. I said she’d been defeated.” Another unrepentant Europhile who even today claims Mrs Thatcher was in support of the EU.

Chris Patten: Arch-plotter, arch-Europhile, continues to look after Number 1 with his various appointments including boss of the still disgracefully anti-Thatcher BBC. Behind Heseltine’s bid for power. Totally untrustworthy.

Tony Blair: He may have been her heir but he learned nothing (he even wanted to join the Euro and we have Gordon Brown to thank for at least avoiding that particular catastrophe) and will always remain the worst Prime Minister this country has ever been cursed with.

The hypocrite's £1 million charter

This blog won't have to sign up to the Government's control orders for newspapers which is just as well because if they tried to get punitive damages out of me they would be disappointed. Not sure the resources stretch to £1 million plus costs.
In a way it's a pity I won't have to submit myself to the jackboot of pettifogging politicians bent on revenge - because I won't get the self-harming satisfaction of telling them where to stuff their statutorily non-statutory underpinning regulation of the still-free-ha-ha press.
What with the jailing of police officers for the heinous crime of talking to reporters and dawn raids on the homes of journalists, you would be forgiven for thinking we were living under some Communist terror regime.
The police state is alive and well and being run from Ed Miliband's
offices by the nation's favourite filthy hypocrites Steve Coogan, Hugh Grant and Max Moseley.
The truth is that, despite what these friends to the stars would have us believe, any crimes committed are more than likely to be prosecuted already. There is no need for new laws governing the press.
This is just a feeble attempt by embittered public figures to wreak
revenge for their various public humiliations.
And with disgusting self-righteousness they hide their hypocrisy by
parading Millie Dowler and the Mcanns as the real "victims".
Let's not forget, though, that Millie Dowler's phone was NOT hacked by the "News of the World" after all - even though that alleged incident sparked the whole farrago.
And as for the Mccanns, well if I expressed my opinions about them I dare say I would be liable for punitive damages.
Regulation of the press is unnecessary, deeply damaging, undemocratic, unconstitutional and irrelevant.
Irrelevant because whatever constraints the State tries to impose will affect only one diminishing segment of the media world - and leave the Internet for all practical purposes unaffected.
When a silly woman like Sally Bercow can utter some trivial Twittering tweet and gain nationwide publicity, the hated Murdoch press are almost irrelevant.
The media must be free. Free to make mistakes and get things wrong and cross the line from time to time.
Without the freedom to transgress, who knows what crimes, misdeeds and abuses of power might never see the light of day? You certainly couldn’t trust the media-monopolising propagandists for the left-wing Establishment (ie the BBC).

Oh how I hate Windows 8

Oh how I hate
Windows 8.
As set-up unfurled
I called PC World,
Who give support, for a substantial fee.
They slammed the phone down on me.

Talktalk won't,
Tiscali don't,
Microsoft can't
possibly.

Then there's the hell
That is Dell.

I tried helplines
Time after press-two time
It's all mirrors and smoke,
A rip-off, a joke.

And as for the IPad
It drives you mad.
It is, I fear,
Over-priced, over-hyped and over here.


PS Have just sent this to Tiscali (aka TalkTalk): I have downloaded Mozilla Thunderbird because, no thanks to you, I have discovered this works with Tiscali and Windows 8 even though you have not bothered to upgrade to make it work with Outlook. However, it will no longer send e-mails (though it still receives them). As this is a regular problem with Tiscali, I assume the problem is somehow your fault. Can you explain how to correct it please? Your website claims "no known outages" and later says you do have a problem. Which is it?

So the reply says:

Email - Known Issues & Outages We are currently experiencing an issue with our email service and you may be unable to view, send or receive emails. Our engineers are working on this as a high priority in order to restore your service as soon as possible. We apologise for any inconvenience. More information can be found on the following page: Email - Known Issues & Outages

You click on the link and it announces:

Email - Known Issues & Outages

Currently, there are no known reported issues affecting our email services

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours

Astonishing. The discredited boss of the NHS, “Sir” David Nicholson, has made “Dame” Barbara Hakin his deputy. Talk about corruption in high places. 

This woman was head of the NHS in the West Midlands and we all know what a success that has been with 800 to 1,200 deaths at Stafford Hospital alone. 

She is being accused of blocking an external review of mortality rates at United Lincolnshire NHS Trust, and forcing the resignation of the hospital’s chief executive after he raised concerns. 

She is understood to be facing a General Medical Council investigation into her conduct. Yet she has been promoted to one of the most senior roles in the health service. 

This is a disgusting insult to everyone who has ever used, or fears they may ever have to use, the National Heath Service. 

At its very apex is a cosy little club of highly-paid individuals who seem to sail serenely on in spite of the collapse in public confidence in their activities. 

My own theory about why “Sir” Dave has not quit yet is that his pay-off would be so huge the Government would be more embarrassed about that than it is by keeping on this leper quangocrat.

Meanwhile Dr Clare Gerada, chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs, says politicians should be supporting NHS staff. She says: "The constant publicity about how bad the NHS is has the potential to frighten the people who need it most, who might think it's not a safe place to get the care they need."

Sorry Clare but the truth is that only if patients are sufficiently frightened that they demand improvements will the NHS ever be brought up to Third World standard. We are right to be worried. The health service is run by its employees for its employees.

Patients are so-called because they have to wait so long for anyone to bother to treat them.

(I have put their titles in inverted commas because they were clearly awarded for incompetence above and beyond the call of duty and only go to quangocrats or other civil servants competent to squander our money in sufficient quantities to earn them this order of merit).

Nicholson should not resign, he should be put on trial

If a private company were responsible for the deaths of up to 1,200 people there would be a national outcry and demands to jail those responsible.

Yet, after no fewer than five investigations into what happened at Stafford Hospital, no individual has received so much as a slapped wrist.

How can this be?

The police have begun an investigation into what must be the biggest scandal in the history of the NHS.

Years after the event, they have finally stirred themselves.

Matthew Ellis, the police and crime commissioner for Staffordshire, claims they have “information not in the public domain”.

How they came by it should itself be the subject of a public inquiry.

Why do the police have information which has not been declared even to tribunals set up by the Government?

The latest inquiry by Robert Francis QC uncovered years of abuse and neglect at the hospital leading to the unnecessary deaths of between 400 and 1,200 people.

These aren’t statistics, they’re individuals who placed their trust in a system which ended up killing them – horrific for the victims and their loved ones.

This isn’t a case of an individual nurse or doctor. Mr Francis concludes the failings go right to the top of the health service.

The police investigation is no doubt being staged mainly for political reasons.

Everyone from David Cameron down believes scapegoats must be found, heads must roll and someone should pay.

He says: “One of the important points about the Mid-Staffordshire inquiry is to make sure, when a failure like this takes place, there is proper accountability.

"In the report, you can see exactly what happened to the people who were involved. Some of them were allowed to retire, some were allowed to move within the health service. There wasn't proper accountability, there wasn't proper consequences and that is not acceptable."

Actually Dave, some of them didn’t move or retire, they were promoted, given more money, more power and more responsibility.

And it is not too late to insist on “proper accountability and proper consequences”.

It’s highly likely the police will content themselves with digging out a few especially shocking cases of neglect involving a heartless nurse or two.

But let’s hope they are mounting a major prosecution of people at the very top of the NHS on a charge of corporate manslaughter.

The health service as a whole is guilty of causing unnecessary deaths as a result of several layers of mismanagement, indifference and neglect.

The doctors and consultants must take much of the blame. They saw what was going on but “kept their heads down”, according to Mr Francis.

But the real defendants should be among the £200,000-a-year bureaucrats in whom we mistakenly place our trust.

Chief among these is Sir David Nicholson.

In 2003 he was Chief Executive of Birmingham and The Black Country Strategic Health Authority. In 2005 he took on Shropshire and Staffordshire as well, at about the time people started needlessly dying at Stafford Hospital.

He did so well in the West Midlands he became chief executive of the entire NHS in England in 2006.

He is paid over £200,000 a year, claims £50,000 a year in expenses and enjoys benefits-in-kind worth £37,600.

There haven’t been any successful corporate manslaughter prosecutions against individuals.

But the charge was introduced after a series of disasters including the 1987 “Herald of Free Enterprise” tragedy when 193 passengers and crew died and the 1999 Ladbroke Grove rail crash which killed 31 people.

Corporate manslaughter cases usually end up in large fines for the businesses involved.

There’s absolutely no point in similar penalties for the NHS because the whole case would involve the re-cycling of our money.

But where does the buck stop in a scandal like Stafford Hospital? Surely it must stop somewhere.

Or is the health service such a rambling and unwieldy organisation that officially nobody can be held to account for anything? Is the NHS so big it is always someone else’s fault?

That cannot be acceptable.

We rightly condemn top bankers for bringing the nation to the brink of bankruptcy and some of them, like Sir Fred Goodwin of RBS, even had to quit (albeit with hefty pay-offs).

That was only money. When it comes to lives, it seems no individual is to blame – just a “culture”.

The Francis report says: “The negative aspects of culture in the system were identified as including: lack of openness to criticism; lack of consideration for patients; defensiveness; looking inwards not outwards; secrecy; misplaced assumptions about the judgements and actions of others; acceptance of poor standards; a failure to put the patient first in everything that is done.”

And it’s clear the culture is dictated from the top – Sir David’s department “has not always put patients first”.

So where does the buck stop? Who sets the tone for an organisation? Who is responsible for its corporate culture?

It’s time Sir David was made to face up to his personal responsibility for this national tragedy. But he’s probably so lost in NHS bureaucracy he thinks culture is something they grow in a test tube.

Cameron's jam

The result of the Eastleigh by-election leaves UKIP holding a gun to David Cameron’s head. If he refuses a referendum on EU membership before the next General Election then his party will lose.

The choice is simple. Nobody believes Cameron’s promise of jam tomorrow any more than they believe his promised referendum will be a straightforward in-out choice.

The Prime Minister himself is a committed European. He has often said he does not believe Britain should withdraw from the EU so he will do everything in his power to ensure the people never get a straightforward chance to decide the question.

Unless he holds an early referendum, UKIP will scoop up votes at a General Election in constituencies across the country. And that will deprive several Tory MPs – Eurosceptics among them – of their seats and their party of any chance of forming the next Government.

It will allow Ed Miliband to form the next Government, probably without the assistance of his friends among the Liberal Democrats.

That is not an outcome many people would relish but it looks highly probable unless the Tories can neutralise the threat of UKIP.

There is only one way of doing so. Cameron has his fate in his own hands.

Stephanie Flanders is an economics guru

THE GRU SONG

Flanders the Swan

A year ago, last Thursday

I was strolling in the treasury

when I met a man who though he knew the lot.

He was laying down the law about the habits of bankers

And how little spines a politician's got.

So I asked him:

"What's that creature there?"

He answered, "Oh, it's a h'Peston"

I might of gone on thinking that was true 

If the animal in question hadn't put that chap to shame

And remarked, "I h'aint a Peston, I'm a Gru"

"I'm a Gru

I'm a Gru

The g-nicest work of g-nature on TV too.

I'm a Gru

How do you do

You really ought to k-now w-ho's w-ho's

I'm a Gru

A gneconomics Gru

I'm g-not a Peston or a Mason

So let me introduce 

I'm g-neither man or moose

Oh g-no g-no g-no I'm a Gru"

I had taken furnished lodgings down at Rustington-on-Sea

Whence I travelled on to Ashton-under-Lyne it was actually

And the second night I stayed there I was woken from a dream

That I'll tell you all about some other time.

On the flat screen TV on the wall above my bed

Serious and frowning, was a face I thought I knew;

A Paxman? No, it's not a Paxman. 

An Esler? Unlikely, Really. A Osbornebeest?

When I though I heard a voice...

"I'm a Gru

I'm a Gru

A g-neconomics Gru

I wish I could g-nash my teeth at you.

I'm a Gru

How do you do

I really do k-now w-ho's w-ho's.

I'm a Gru

Spelt G-R-U

Call me a Peston or a Mason and I'll sue

G-nor am I the least like that dreadful Osbornebeest.

Oh, g-no, g-no, g-no, 

G-no g-no g-no, I'm a Gru

G-no g-no g-no, I'm a Gru."

Barriers to understanding

I see various Tory MPs are now demanding David Cameron avoids an in-out referendum on the EU mainly on economic grounds.
They say: “Senior business figures don’t want the UK to play a lesser role in the EU. They fear, as we know you do, the danger to British business and jobs of the UK being on the wrong side of a tariff barrier which could fatally undermine our government’s policy of rebalancing the economy so that we boost manufacturing and reduce unemployment.”

Everyone wants free trade between Britain and Europe but we are told escaping the clutches of the Superstate would somehow cause irreparable damage.

Why on earth would our friends across the English Channel want to boycott British goods and provoke a trade war?

Just consider these official HMRC statistics: UK exports to the EU totalled £13.1 billion in November. Imports totalled £18.2 billion. The trade gap was £5.1 billion.

Our trading partners in Europe would lose more than we would if anything stopped the free flow of goods and services. So they have a clear financial interest in working with us, not against us, in ensuring relations between an independent Britain and the EU were unaffected by the re-assertion of our sovereignty.

Today, tomorrow, some time, never

It's all about politics. David Cameron does not want to leave the European Union. He does not want a referendum on the question either.
What he wants is to win the next General Election and even the Euro elections which take place next year.
So, to give himself half a chance while keeping his own Eurosceptics happy and wrong-footing the Labour Party, he is holding out the possibility of a referendum.
Not today, not tomorrow, but sometime or never.
He's got to renegotiate our EU membership and win the next General Election first. Two possibly insurmountable hurdles.
So why all the excitement?
Because at least a Prime Minister is holding out the vague possibility that we can take control of our own destiny.
It is a little odd he is proposing a referendum while at the same time arguing that we must vote Yes to staying in the EU when the time comes.
But it's better than nothing, I suppose, and it is a triumph for those people who have argued for decades that the British people were duped into agreeing to remain in the Common Market and have been ignored ever since.
If it ever comes to an in-out referendum we know all the power, all the money, all the vested interests and all the pressure will be on one side of the argument.

All of it designed to thwart the will of the people which is (despite some dubious polls organised by a company with direct links to the EU Commission) firmly against being swallowed up into a European super-state.

I don’t think we should be fooled into believing this is anything but another ploy to keep Britain inside the European Union.

Cameron's Eurospin

Why are the Americans, the Germans, the CBI, our ex-Ambassador to the US and all the great and good warning David Cameron about the danger to Britain of even the thought that we might pull out of the EU? Because that’s what the Prime Minister wants them to say. He has no intention of offering the voters a way out but he needs to pile pressure on himself to see off his own Eurosceptics and UKIP. It’s all about party politics and has nothing to do with what’s best for Britain.

NHS - No healthy solution

Stafford Hospital isn’t unique, it’s just the most tragic (so far). How anyone can revere the National Health Service is beyond me. It’s a tragic farce. In an ideal world we would dismantle the whole thing and start again. At the very least we should put patients in charge of the way it’s run – instead of the vested interests of doctors, consultants and trade union leaders.

Here’s my latest experience:

e-mail to: Patientexperience@uhb.nhs.uk sent on Sunday, December 30, 2012

My father was sent to the clinical decision unit at about 2pm today and finally saw a doctor at 5.30. This is, I suppose, what you would class as an acceptable standard of service. I would not.

According to the consultant on duty – who I finally tracked down because nobody was interested in examining my father – the doctors were overwhelmed with work because there had been 37 admissions since 9 am and only five doctors on duty.

By my calculations that is one doctor to just over 7 patients admitted in the course of 8 hours. This works out at better than one patient per doctor per hour. I accept there are other patients the doctors also have to see but even so it does not seem an excessive workload to handle.

One patient per doctor per hour is not overwhelmingly demanding.

That being so, and given that the patients do not all arrive together but over an 8 hour period, how is it possible for a newly-admitted patient to be ignored for maybe two and a half hours and finally only see a doctor once a protest has been made about this neglect?

Why is the system so chaotic? For instance, the consultant said they needed to find my father's notes but they didn't - I was able to inform him the notes were already on the ward and the nurse on duty knew exactly where they were. Did he assume the notes were lost? If so, why? Is that what usually happens?

The planning and deployment of nursing staff was completely chaotic. Why does the hospital provide no doubt expensive computers for staff when everything is done on pieces of paper and - to me quite unbelievably - a white board with various notes in different coloured ink?

To add insult to injury, when he was asked if he’d like some food, he said he could manage some soup. So why was the soup delivered to the patient without anybody bothering to mention it to draw it to his attention? It was left beside the bed for some time before anyone noticed. When they did, it had become cold and congealed. No wonder people starve to death on the NHS.

Finally, my elderly mother was with me in the hospital despite the fact that she, too, is unwell. I asked the doctor, when she eventually arrived, if she would mind examining my mother quickly while she was there because I thought she could do with some antibiotics. This was a request too far. She told me she was not allowed to examine patients who had not been officially admitted and that if I was concerned about my mother I should take her to the Accident and Emergency Department next door. Given the waiting time that would involve, I concluded the best thing to do was to take her home and put her to bed. But, whatever the rules and regulations you feel the need to impose, is this really any way to serve patients and the public? 

Having had no reply, I sent another e-mail: 

24 hours on he has been transferred to another ward but in all that time he has not once been seen by a doctor. Is this usual? Is this reasonable? When will someone be bothered to check if he is OK? 

and a third: 

I am looking forward to a response to my e-mails within the next 24 hours. 

On January 2 I got this: 

Good morning Mr Hastilow

Thank you for your e-mail sent to the Patient Experience inbox, I am sorry that you are not happy with the service provided to your father at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham which has given you a need to bring these issues to our attention.

There are several ways in which this can be dealt with, I can forward your concern directly onto our PALS department (Patient Advice and Liaison Services), PALS will be able to look into this issue on your behalf and respond to you once they have obtained information from the relevant management, alternatively, I can pass your information directly onto the manager for that particular ward and department to ask that they feedback to you directly (If you do not require feedback please let me know.)

If you would be kind enough to advise which way forward you would like to go with this that would be most helpful.

I hope the above is satisfactory to you and if we can be of any further assistance in the future please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Mrs Sue Higgins

Patient Experience Facilitator 

I replied: I think the PALS department would be appropriate. 

They responded:

Thank you again for your prompt reply and the information that you have provided. I have already forwarded your previous email to the PALS Team who were waiting to hear of your preferred method of communication. I have copied the team into this email so that they will be in contact with as soon as they can.

Mrs. Sue Higgins

Patient Experience Facilitator 

I said: I would prefer to hear from you by e-mail 

They responded: I would like to introduce my self my name is Dawn McKenna and I will be the pals officer looking into your concerns raised by your email on Sunday. I have escalated your original email to the Matron and Ward Managers of CDU, would you be kind enough to let me have a direct contact number for you that I can pass onto Matron who will be wanting to speak to you direct.

Dawn C McKenna
Patient Advice & Liaison Officer  

I sent them a mobile number but said I would prefer communications to be in writing as I was a journalist and may wish to report on the situation in due course. I then got this: 

I am writing in relation to your recent emails regarding the care received by your father. I was sorry to learn of your concerns about the service at QEH. 

The matter has been passed to me as you have requested a response in writing and we will therefore be dealing with this as a formal complaint. We are obliged to seek your father’s consent, both to the complaint and to the sharing of his information with you. Ahead of our writing to him, I would be grateful if you would confirm that he is aware of your contact to us and that our letter will be on its way to him.

Once we have received consent, we will be in a position to complete our review and respond to you. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this email.

Dave Beech
Patient Services Co-ordinator 

I said: He does not know of my complaint and is far too ill (still) to be bothered with this. Please do not communicate with him and only communicate with me. I am asking for some answers to questions; I cannot believe you need a formal procedure for that. 

They said: Thank you for your reply. In the circumstances you have detailed we will not make contact with your father, although the Trust’s response to you will be limited.

We are dealing with your enquiry through the Complaints Process as it is the Trust’s mechanism for investigating and responding formally to concerns raised about its services. We will contact you again as soon as possible.

Dave Beech
Patient Services Co-ordinator 

I asked how long this would take and so far I haven’t had an answer, though it is amazing that so far three people have been involved in my complaint – two more than the number of doctors who could be bothered to care for my father.

Later... answer arrives:

We are hoping to receive information from the clinical team very shortly, following which there will be a review of the information at a senior level prior to the Trust responding to you. We hope to be able to finalise this matter within the next few weeks, but will contact you if for any reason there is an unforeseen delay

David Beech
Patient Services Co-ordinator

 

They are all honourable men

As I said in October: Why does everyone assume Andrew Mitchell is guilty of calling the police f***ing plebs? Have we reached the point where Cabinet Ministers are automatically assumed to be liars?

Mr Mitchell should not resign as Chief Whip unless he is not telling the truth. But he has declared to the Prime Minister and the public that he did not say the words attributed to him.

Should we not believe him? He is an honourable man.

Petty bureaucrats dog us at every turn. It can be hard to keep your composure when some pathetic jobsworth is bossing you about – often just because he can.

Still, I have always assumed that if you swear at a policeman, you’ll be arrested no matter if you are a king or a clown, and serve you right.

If the police account of Andrew Mitchell’s rant is true, he should lose his job.

But what if it is untrue? What, then, are the police up to? Are they lying? And, if so, why? To undermine the Government?

One side is not telling the truth. It may be Mr Mitchell but equally it could be the police.

And if it is the police, we should be much more worried than we might be if it’s just a grumpy Minister after a long lunch.
Not sure I have anything to add to that at the moment...

Virgin berth

Having said how appalling Chiltern Trains have become, I tried Virgin instead just days after Richard Branson's outfit won a two-year extension to its franchise.

How anyone could travel on this line is beyond me. Quite apart from the fact that all Virgin trains stink because their loos are basically insanitary, the price is beyond comprehension.

Second class return from Birmingham International to Euston (including car parking, admittedly) is a staggering £166.

It's not worth £20.

The outward journey was OK but when we reached Coventry on the way back the five carriages filled up so much it was standing room only for dozens of people.

So crammed was the train that I feared I might not actually get to the exit door in time before the train moved on.

As for everyone trying to get on the train at Birmingham International having been to the Clothes Show at the NEC, they were treated like refugees or Japanese commuters. I'm surprised there wasn't some Virgin operative employed to shove and push them all on board so the doors would close.

Why does anyone love Richard Branson? His rip-off railway is a bad joke.

Chiltern failways

It's standing room only - yet again - on the Chiltern Trains service to London. What happened to this railway? A few years ago it was the best way from Birmingham to London. Now it's overcrowded, expensive and unreliable. 

Today I tried to park at Warwick Parkway's new car park and almost crashed the car because they had not bothered to treat the top floor, which is open to the elements, despite the icy conditions.
 

I slipped across the top floor to the stairs lucky and thankful I didn't come a cropper and then had to pay £101.50 for a return ticket to Marylebone. That's because the train left before 9am. About five minutes before. But it stopped at Leamington Spa, we were all kicked off and told to wait for the next (cheaper, overcrowded) train. 

So here we all are, crammed in like sardines and ripped off to boot. Strangely there is no ticket collector. No doubt they will blame staff shortages but the truth is they don't have the courage to face carriages- full of unhappy passengers.