Home » BBC
David Cameron is wrong on the NHS corporate restructuring for these reasons
In an interview where David Cameron tried to tell John Humhrys he was wrong, Humphrys identified that Cameron was showing no leadership on the bankers.
The interview can be heard here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9363000/9363655.stm
David Cameron is wrong about the NHS restructuring for the following:
It is wrong simply to focus on outcomes at the treatment end; much more could and should be done at the diagnosis end (health policy analysts find outcomes useful, but what they’re actually measuring are objective benefits). Much of the fundamental issue for the next decade will be the early diagnosis of the disease especially cancer, and there needs to be some focus on the efficacy of screening methods at the other end too (e.g.for colon cancer, breast cancer, COPD).
It is no good just talking about length of survival times, because there has to be a proper analysis of the quality-of-life and well being of patients with chronic morbidity including dementia.
The Doctors were not asking for the changes – the BMA is opposed to it, and to my knowledge the Royal College of Physicians shows little interest in it in a very positive direction. The King’s Fund certainly think it is a calamity.
2-3 years is a very short time to produce ‘the biggest reorganisation’ in the first time; it will involve £1.4 bn in the first year. John Humphrys was right to correct the figures that Cameron produced on the basis of actual evidence from the Kings Fund.
Satisfaction is at an all time high now with the NHS – this cannot be divorced from the record spending by Labour in the last parliament.
David Cameron denied the NHS IS getting better. This must means that he thinks that all aspects of it are getting worse. THIS IS A LIE.
John Humphrys asked that the NHS was in fact changing to a Federal Health Service. Cameron saying that there are already regional variations is frankly irrelevant. Humphrys is correct saying that an analogy between GPs and free schools is an extremely poor analogy; I am shocked that David Cameron is idiotic enough even to suggest it.
There’s no point Cameron trade-union bashing, as there are many ordinary nurses, doctors and other health-professionals who are non-Labour members who are highly critical of his insane policy.
If Andrew Lansley is so well respected, why does the whole of RCN disagree with him? The man is not well respected amongst the health professionals.
Dr Shibley Rahman Queen’s Scholar; BA (1st Class), MA, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, Doctor of Philosophy, Diploma of the Membership of the Royal College of Physicians (MRCP(UK)); FRSA, LLB(Hons).
Member of the Fabian Society.
The BBC and Conservatives – are they "stirring" on the Marr Show?
The BBC ran a new story that resulted in me receiving a lot of offensive abuse saying that Ed was trying to distance himself from the unions and scrap EMA. I am simply totally disgusted about how irresponsibly the BBC have reported this, and led to losing friendships.
The story is here.
The EMA story
In his BBC interview, Mr Miliband said he had been talking to Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes about the coalition’s scrapping of the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for teenagers in England.
This introductory statement is incredibly misleading, such that people wrote to me saying that Ed Miliband was in collusion over scrapping of the EMA. This is completely untrue. Given that some Liberal Democrats like the Labour Party find it abhorrent that such support for students is being taken away, Andy Burnham is tabling an amendment such that its successor in some form can support students financially. I understand that Simon Hughes and Andy Burnham behind the scenes are working very hard to make this happen. Here is the video I took at the Fabian Society New Year Conference on Saturday.
The ASLEF story
From the ASLEF website
This is clearly written on the ASLEF website.
Royal wedding: Tube strike
10 Jan 2011
ASLEF’s General Secretary Keith Norman said today that the question of possible industrial action on the day of the Royal Wedding has not even been discussed by the union’s executive.
The union’s London officer Steve Grant stressed that no ballot had been held and the union and the management were due to resume negotiations about compensation for all Bank Holiday working by London Underground tube drivers.
‘The story is premature to say the least,’ Keith added
The link is here.
Here is a screenshot in case it disappears for some reason.
The report by the BBC and the amount of shit-stirring by David Cameron on this has been obscene.
There have been reports of transport and public sector strikes on 29 April, but unions have played down the idea in recent days.
The reports have come from the right-wing press and the BBC. ASLEF have been trying to deny them vigorously.
London Underground drivers in the Aslef union had been considering walking out on the day of Prince William’s marriage to Kate Middleton, but the threat has been removed as talks with Transport for London officials take place.
Read the statement above by ASLEF. So that you don’t think ASLEF are a bunch of thugs, I’d like to remind you of a picture of the equivalent of ASLEF members from yesteryear.
The BBC should report the news fairly, not be in the business as usual of sensational scaremongering. The BBC News in fact as usual simply disgusts me in how incompetent it is.
http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/121663/royal_wedding__tube_strike/
Crucial part on VAT and jobs by the British Retail Consortium blocked by the BBC
As if Nick Clegg’s pledge on tuition fees wasn’t bad enough, do you remember this old chestnut?
Staggeringly, the crucial part on the effect of VAT on jobs in today’s BBC news story on the VAT (“VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%“) is missing. This account on the British Retail Consortium website is as follows. This is a crucial part of the story, as otherwise the Conservative spin on NI being the only jobs tax is simply lie and spin; the BBC, as an independent and partial broadcaster, should not be in collusion with lies and spin.
This is what Ed himself said on the matter, covered on ITN News, but non-existent on the BBC which prides itself on its balance and (lack of) bias.
Link to the site: http://www.brc.org.uk/details04.asp?id=1744
Here is the text of the British Retail Consortium’s original press release on the matter:
| VAT RISE WOULD COST 163,000 JOBS |
| May 27, 2010 |
| Increasing the VAT rate to 20 per cent would cost 163,000 jobs over four years and reduce consumer spending by £3.6 billion over the same period.
The biggest challenge facing the new Government is to reduce the budget deficit without damaging the recovery. Now, for the first time, independent analysis carried out for the British Retail Consortium (BRC) quantifies the economic impact of a range of possible VAT increases and of the National Insurance increases already announced by this Government. The research concludes there is no silver bullet that will allow the Government to raise large amounts of revenue without having a substantial effect on the economy. Employment, consumption and GDP would all be hit significantly by tax rises. The BRC is calling on the Government to follow through on its recent statements that public spending cuts will be prioritised over tax rises as a route to tackling the deficit. The BRC is also cautioning that halving the deficit over four years not three would better support the recovery. In its first year, a VAT rate of 20 per cent would reduce the deficit by £11.3 billion but by the end of that first year there would be 30,000 fewer jobs in the UK – across all employment sectors – than if there had been no increase. After four years that figure would be 163,000 fewer jobs. A year on from raising VAT to 20 per cent, consumer spending would be £1.6 billion less than it would have been and after four years, £3.6 billion less. Higher VAT means lower demand for goods and services as prices go up and companies’ margins are hit, meaning they have to cut costs to keep trading so employ fewer people or hold-back on job creation. The analysis commissioned by the BRC also examines the impact of a range of other possible VAT increases. A 19 per cent VAT rate would cost 99,000 jobs over four years while a 22.5 per cent rate would mean 317,000 fewer jobs over the same period. The new Government has said it will increase employees’ National Insurance Contributions by one per cent and employers’ by 0.5 per cent. That will reduce UK job numbers by 25,000 in the first year. The UK jobs total will be 109,000 down after four years. Consumer spending would contract by £948 million in the first year and £2.2 billion after four years. The Director of the BRC explained, “The budget deficit is serious. It has to be tackled but proposals must be judged against the implications for jobs and growth revealed by this new information. “The main tool has to be cutting non-vital public spending. Removing some of the previously-planned National Insurance increase and signals that the Chancellor will look for an 80:20 split between public spending cuts and tax rises are a welcome start. “Business growth will get the country out of the hole it’s in, led by retail. The Government must now deliver a route to stability that supports companies and customers by avoiding damaging tax rises.” The study has been carried out for the BRC by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) using its model of the UK economy. The model assesses the initial revenue raising impact of the taxes then the follow-on consequences as they cascade through the economy. First round effects can include immediate reductions in spending by those most affected by a tax rise. Second round effects can include firms reducing employment and investment as costs or margins are hit. This feeds through to lower demand and lower productive capacity. Notes to Editors: The full BRC/CEBR report Reducing Public Borrowing: Balancing Spending Cuts and Tax Rises is available at : Media contacts: |
And what did David Cameron originally say to Jeremy Paxman?
Video : "9/12/10 Tuition Fee Protest – What The BBC Didn't Report" by Xanna Ward Dixon
“9/12/10 Tuition Fee Protest – What The BBC Didn’t Report” by Xanna Ward Dixon
BBC Apprentice: @Lord_Sugar defends Stuart Baggs
@Lord_Sugar wrote yesterday on Twitter:
Stuart Baggs getting too much flack, he entertained us, he’s very young n will learn,he will do well one day ,he is actually a nice boy
We should take these words very seriously. I agree.
The problems facing Lord Sugar in BBC The Apprentice Final 2010 by Shibley Rahman
I am not a successful businessman. This does not mean I am an unsuccessful businessman. I am a company director of my own e-learning business for law and medicine here in London. However, I will be starting a two year MBA (Master of Business Administration) degree at BPP Business School in London in January 2011, as I am genuinely interested in both the theory and practice of business, particularly leadership. My brief interaction with the legal world, which has been through a thus far successful Master of Law at the College of Law of England and Wales, has taught me that the business and legal worlds are incredibly closely-related, but it is important to me the impact of successful team-building as well as leadership; I see corporate law is being built by a plethora of highly effective managers, but with few leaders. The corporate mentality is undeniably potentially stifling unless in the right hands, fostering a rather stifling a suffocating anti-intellectual atmosphere, unless corporate law can encourage equality, diversity and inclusivity with some of the clients it is supposed to represent.
Lecture over. Here is the knub then of the problem faced by Lord Sugar on Sunday, in the final of the BBC series “The Apprentice”. Having blown out Stuart Baggs (the ‘Blagger’), one has to feel some genuine disappointment that Lord Sugar has chucked out Liz Locke through having been innocently taken in by the bullshit of Stuart Baggs. Baggs was outed as a confidence trickster, albeit a very technically-minded one, who would do anything to achieve his aims. I like Gordon the lawyer loathe the fact that he would be allegedly willing to break the law, defamation, in rubbishing a business partner to achieve his own ends. This is both illegal and unethical, and certainly would do not thing for Alan Sugar the Brand, let alone Stuart Baggs the Brand.
Stella English is impressive for very many reasons. She doesn’t do emotion as such professionally, and is meticulous in her organisation and discipline, hard work and genuine commitment. She has taken on board incessant criticisms about being ‘wooden’. She has been incredibly successful in the corporate management environment, and the question now for Lord Sugar is to find a suitable role for her in his organisation. Therefore, if she can pull off an inspiring demonstration on Sunday, that will go a long way. She needs to demonstrate that she is a potential entrepreneurial leader; she can have followers, has a set of responsible ideals, can take risks, can work in teams and demonstrate some emotional intelligence, and of course create a superb business plan. However, Christopher Bates has demonstrated entrepreneurial flair in the past in the course of the series, but his track record in not sticking at a job or a course has to be some cause for concern. It’s no good waiting for the quality of what Chris says if he drones on for hours in a pitch on behalf of Sugar’s organisation to a client, but I have no doubting that his skills are understated. For what it’s worth, I think both Stella and Chris would be a ‘safe pair of hands’ at board level, fulfilling the requirements of the Companies Act (2006) in both letter and spirit; in their duty to promote the success of the company, the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and, especially given their high degree of sheer competence thus far in the competition, a duty to practise with due skill, care and diligence. The words of Peter Drucker continue to haunt me – leadership is doing the right things, management is about doing things right. Where Alan Sugar is superb is that he does both.
Lord Sugar said he didn’t want a ‘steady Eddie’, but this is ironically exactly what he might need in vast quantities in these turbulent economic times. A fairly close decision, and it could be tipped either way. Jamie’s poor interviewing came as a surprise to me yesterday, and definitely cost him a place in the Final. Sunday’s performance does matter therefore. I feel it go in anyone’s favour.
Alastair Campbell, who brought this country to its knees, has spun his way out
“Alastair Campbell, who brought this country to its knees, has spun his way out-of-trouble.
I say ..
The BBC is clearly on a path of self-destruct when it comes to journalism
I am actually a world-respected expert in dementia, particularly in the field of the frontotemporal dementia, although I have written several book chapters mainly on Alzheimer’s disease. For example, these are some publications.
Shibley Rahman, Sahakian, B.J., Robbins, T.W. (1999). Comparative studies in frontal lobe function: what they reveal about possible therapeutic strategies in frontal variant frontotemporal dementia. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders 10 Suppl 1:15-28.
Shibley Rahman, Sahakian, B.J., Hodges, J.R., Rogers, R.D., Robbins, T.W. (1999) Specific cognitive deficits in early frontal variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain 122 (Pt 8):1469-93 [accompanied by a Wellcome Trust Press Release, August 1999 and presented at the Society for Neurosciences, Miami (1999)].
Shibley Rahman, Sahakian, B.J. (2001) Dementia. Chapter in: Textbook of Clinical Pharmacology, McGraw Hill Publishers.
Shibley Rahman, Sahakian, B.J., Gregory, C.A. (2001) Therapeutic strategies in early onset dementia. In: Early Onset Dementia (ed. J.R. Hodges). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Shibley Rahman, Swainson, R., Sahakian, B.J. (2001) Dementia of the Alzheimer type. Martin-Dunitz.
Shibley Rahman, Robbins, T.W., Cardinal, R.N., Sahakian, B.J. (2001) The neuropsychiatry of decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences Jun 1;5(6):271- 277.
Lee, A.C., Shibley Rahman, Hodges, J.R., Sahakian, B.J., Graham, K.S. (2003) Associative and recognition memory for novel objects in dementia: implications for diagnosis. Eur J Neurosci 18; 1660-1670
Deakin, J., Shibley Rahman, Sahakian, B.J., Nestor, P.J., Hodges, J.R., Robbins, T.W. Paroxetine does not improve symptoms and impairs cognition in frontotemporal dementia: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2004 Apr;172(4):400-8. Epub 2003 Dec 10.
Shibley Rahman, Sahakian, B.J., Nestor, P.J., Hodges, J.R., Robbins, T.W.Methylphenidate (‘Ritalin’) can Ameliorate Abnormal Risk-Taking Behavior in the Frontal Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia. Nature (Neuropsychopharmacology). 2005 Sep 7; [Epub ahead of print]
Shibley Rahman, Griffin, H.J., Quinn, N.P., Jahanshahi, M. The factors that induce or overcome freezing. Behav. Neurol. 2008;19(3):127-36.
Shibley Rahman, Griffin, H.J., Quinn, N.P., Jahanshahi, M. Quality of life: the relative contribution of physical symptoms. Mov Disord. 2008 Jul 30;23(10):1428-34
Manes, F., Torralva, T., Shibley Rahman, Ibanez, A., Roca, M, Beckinschtein, T., Gleichgerrcht, E. Free will and decision-making in early behavioral frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD): a legal and ethical dilemma. Submitted to Brain, 2010.
Shibley Rahman, Manes, F. The cognitive neuroscience of the legal mens rea. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2010. In preparation.
Bechara, A., Shibley Rahman, Manes, F. Position statement on frontal variant frontotemporal dementia. In preparation.
I was therefore aghast when I read this on the BBC website:
Nursing care for people with dementia is in need of a radical overhaul, a leading think tank has warned.
The King’s Fund says people with Alzheimer’s and dementia in England are having NHS-funded care withdrawn in the later stages of their illness.
The reason being is that Alzheimer’s disease is a major type of dementia; they are not two separate conditions. In other words, Alzheimer’s disease is one of very many causes of dementia, and saying ‘Alzheimer’s disease and dementia’ is very confusing and dangerous to lay-people; some people might think that Alzheimer’s disease is a later stage of dementia, for example.
It’s not the first time that the BBC has screwed up basic neuroscience. For example, it regularly screws up coverage of Huntingdon’s disease, by getting the name wrong.
Please give us a break BBC…
Dr Shibley Rahman
