Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did.
Who knows if it's a coincidence or not.

Then you've this from 2012.
www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx

I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though.

Indeed it was, but that's what Tories do. It most certainly isn't what the Labour party do, or did.
Who knows if it's a coincidence or not.

Then you've this from 2012.
www.nhs.uk/news/2012/05may/Pages ... rates.aspx

I've no idea how these figures stack up prior to the selling off by that woman, I suppose the reduction in cases as the level of private investment increases is purely a coincidence. Surely a good thing though.

It's what New Labour does/did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was a reason that one of the first things Blair did, on becoming leader, was to get rid of Clause 4 from the party's constitution – the clause that tied the party, at least ideologically, to public/state ownership.

In office, Blair's government continued down the same ideological, economic route set in motion by Margaret Thatcher: continued privatisation, continued deregulation etc.

The only substantial difference – the 'third way' – was actually spending something on public services, although not to the record levels that became a myth that the party left unchallenged for political reasons at the time. But by 1997, hospitals and schools etc were in crisis in terms of infrastructure after nearly two decades of cuts, privatisation etc. Hence the newspaper headlines about old people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors.



Since the rise of hospital infections, there have been vast numbers of attempts to get infection rates down (handwashes everywhere has been a recurring favourite) – and blame levied all over the shop (too many visitors etc).

Back in 2009, UNISON sponsored a study in a Scottish hospital where it was found that just one extra cleaner on a ward cut infection rates. The experiment lasted for six months on one ward and was then repeated on another ward for the same amount of time.

The problem, if you will, is that staff cost money: handwashes, on the other hand, make profits for someone. If infections kill patients, then any cost (compensation) is likely to be socialised (as was also being agreed when there were efforts to privatise and offshore medical secretaries – a move that had serious consequences for patient outcomes when tried in the US some years ago, and huge financial costs in terms of compensation etc). There are reasons that the obvious and – you would think – easiest options are often the ones least likely to be put into practice.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8337947.stmStory[/url.

Additionally, though not mentioned in that story, UNISON has also repeatedly called for a return to proper sisters on wards, and for them to be given control over cleaning staff. The situation that remains in place at present is that medical staff cannot call a cleaner to do something, because they are not the cleaner's line manager – someone at the private company is – so it's more complicated than it should be to have cleaning services respond to need determined by medical staff.

It's what New Labour does/did. As I've mentioned elsewhere, there was a reason that one of the first things Blair did, on becoming leader, was to get rid of Clause 4 from the party's constitution – the clause that tied the party, at least ideologically, to public/state ownership.

In office, Blair's government continued down the same ideological, economic route set in motion by Margaret Thatcher: continued privatisation, continued deregulation etc.

The only substantial difference – the 'third way' – was actually spending something on public services, although not to the record levels that became a myth that the party left unchallenged for political reasons at the time. But by 1997, hospitals and schools etc were in crisis in terms of infrastructure after nearly two decades of cuts, privatisation etc. Hence the newspaper headlines about old people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors.



Since the rise of hospital infections, there have been vast numbers of attempts to get infection rates down (handwashes everywhere has been a recurring favourite) – and blame levied all over the shop (too many visitors etc).

Back in 2009, UNISON sponsored a study in a Scottish hospital where it was found that just one extra cleaner on a ward cut infection rates. The experiment lasted for six months on one ward and was then repeated on another ward for the same amount of time.

The problem, if you will, is that staff cost money: handwashes, on the other hand, make profits for someone. If infections kill patients, then any cost (compensation) is likely to be socialised (as was also being agreed when there were efforts to privatise and offshore medical secretaries – a move that had serious consequences for patient outcomes when tried in the US some years ago, and huge financial costs in terms of compensation etc). There are reasons that the obvious and – you would think – easiest options are often the ones least likely to be put into practice.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8337947.stmStory[/url.

Additionally, though not mentioned in that story, UNISON has also repeatedly called for a return to proper sisters on wards, and for them to be given control over cleaning staff. The situation that remains in place at present is that medical staff cannot call a cleaner to do something, because they are not the cleaner's line manager – someone at the private company is – so it's more complicated than it should be to have cleaning services respond to need determined by medical staff.