It's not the substance of the following report in the FT on NHS reform that is interesting, it is the form of wording used:
As Andrew Lansley's NHS bill slips deeper into the mire, amid ever more noisy opposition from doctors' and nurses' trade unions, there are still bits of the mess that can be rescued.
The assumption seems to be that in the face of opposition the governemtn hnow has little chance of getting its NHS reofrms through.
That's a massive change in the narrative if true. And it may not be what the journalist meant. But it reads that way, and I like it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] I pick up a significant change in sentiment in a news story that suggests real change is afoot. First it was the NHS, now it is about the UK Swiss tax deal, and importantly, the change in mood music is coming from […]
Given the amount of money that the private sector will “enjoy” from provision of health services (and looking at the health service PFI scam/scheme) I would say, given the years of planning that has gone into this, that the bill is going through even if they have to hold a gun to every MPs’ head.
And looking at the health assessments given to ESA claimants by private “health” companies I would say the service will be poor, and expensive (seven out of ten people assessed receive six points….none for their original health or disability problem…the “pass” level is fifteen points….the company receives less for more points)