This appears in this week's Golwg:
So what did we actually learn from the recent cross-border controversy about hospital car park charges? We learnt that Ministers at either end of the M4 are not above willy-waving. Yet even though the row was a proxy for it, we didn’t learn any more about whether the English or the Welsh health service is performing better in post-devolution UK.
Robust evaluations are in short supply when it comes to answering this question, but that does not mean we should not try. The NHS exists for the same reason on both sides of Offa’s Dyke - to help people be healthier. The extent to which that is happening is eminently measurable, and if it can be measured it can be compared.
It is almost compulsory at this juncture for the warnings to sound against such an exercise, in health or other public services. Different history, geography and culture, we are told, renders comparison meaningless. It is true that these features moderate delivery; Wales has no vast conurbations like England in which to concentrate resources, for example. But neither should we overstate the differences, nor try not to factor them out of a fuller comparative analysis. There is still far more commonality in the two nations’ health and healthcare systems. We should be able to devise a way to compare the effects of different policy decisions, such as the abolition of hospital car parking charges.
But why bother? Devolution, after all, is supposed to be about letting Wales get on with running her own affairs in a range of areas. Why does it matter what the English do with their public services? It matters a great deal to the majority of people who need the NHS and who have a right to the best possible treatment it has to offer. It matters because by both teaching and learning from England (and Scotland and Northern Ireland) that treatment will improve. And it matters because voters should have solid, digestible information about the performance of their public services.
Rhodri Morgan used to talk about devolution allowing each part of the UK act as a laboratory, experimenting with new solutions for the benefit of all. Nowadays we seem resigned to a UK laboratory in which the Petri dishes are just too different to start with. We can do much better. It’s time to build a proper means of comparison, start a UK public service league table - and stop the willy waving.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Let's get a devolution league table going
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
is this a male thing and why "willy Waving" is this really what you thnk or expect to be taken seriously on
Very disappointing
What a sensitive little flower you are, welshpoppy.
Please subsitute with "posturing" if you prefer.
its official NM, you have become Labour's AluninDyfed, rambling, incoherent, totally partisan and thoroughly unashamed of it.
You have gone from a good, interesting blog read to this partisan diatribe, its a real shame.
What is partisan about this article?
NM,
Chin up, its funny how every critic is always an 'anon' or someone who doesnt write their own blog.
On the issue, i do think its difficult to measure, and also i think the elephant in the room is PFI, which Wesminster has pursued with more vigour. Also believe that the WAG might have a different approach if they had to fund the NHS as an exchequer...
check out
http://stishmael.blogspot.com/
Devolution, after all, is supposed to be about letting Wales get on with running her own affairs in a range of areas. Why does it matter what the English do with their public services?
It matters a great deal because English public services (even under Labour) are so much better than those in Wales. We can't put up with the mess we have here for very much longer.
anon 11:05
..but that isn't wholly the case is it? In some areas, we are better eg lower levels of MRSA.
I think Paul Murphy will have to step in. He is a new man, with good new advisers around him.
Yes, he has some very good new advisers. and some good old ones too.
Mr. Mouth said....
"Rhodri Morgan used to talk about devolution allowing each part of the UK act as a laboratory, experimenting with new solutions for the benefit of all. Nowadays we seem resigned to a UK laboratory in which the Petri dishes are just too different to start with. We can do much better."
johnny says....
Unfortunately, the specimens in the Petri dishes are the sick and disabled who are a little fed up with these 'experiments', which generally have a sole purpose of the reduction of service and the saving of money.
Anonymous said...
I think Paul Murphy will have to step in. He is a new man, with good new advisers around him.
johnny says....
I just wonder who these 'advisers' are?
Could one of them be Professor Mansel Aylward, the doyen of the private health service and private medical insurance world?
The Prof. is about to hand his recommendations regarding reconfiguration of health service provision in the Merthyr area to Edwina Hart, the Health Minister, who is on record as saying that the Prof's. recommendations will be implemented.
In fact Huw Lewis AM goes on to recommend Prof. Aylward as the person of "stature and integrity" to reconfigure health service provision throughout Wales.
Interestingly and curiously enough, the Professor has been closely involved for years with the American medical insurance company UNUM, who have been credibly described as "an outlaw company who have operated in an illegal fashion for years". In simple terms, this company denies legitimate claims.
There is much more on this matter on my blog via the above link.
I have tried quite hard to elicit a response to this description from a variety of MPs, AMs and general politicos.
None have wished to answer and all have studiously avoided the issue.
Here you are Mr. Normal, a chance to rise above the parapet and just provide your observations on this controversial question regarding Assembly associations with a person connected with "OUTLAWS".
I await with bated breath.
Your pal.
johnny.
No, he has some very good advisers from NI Office days.
Unashamedly partisan, Mr Sad Welshman, but rather above party political considerations, as their is only one Welsh national party.
alanindyfed said...
Unashamedly partisan, Mr Sad Welshman, but rather above party political considerations, as their is only one Welsh national party.
You really are quite mad, Alan. So very, very sad. Also, you can't spell.
Hey, Norm, why have you started moderating comments?
A certain amount of malicious sock puppetry that I'm not inclined to indulge.
Comments on the issues will continue to be welcome.
Hello Mr Red Mouth-not too sensitive, just you are a bit above such colloquial and gender biased language.
A Welsh flower yes I am-Blodyn Coch. It just distracted from your rhetoric. I am not in favour of league tables and that is what they would end up being. Make each trust responsible to its community, open evaluation according to local priorities, or is that too devolved
An entirely reasonable alternative vision.
But I sometimes wonder what "local priorities" means. Surely all communities want their health service to help them be healthier. Comparison is a good way of assessing whether they are doing a good job or not.
http://southpawgrammarwales.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-long-is-piece-of-string.html
My post discussing this issue, once again, you take the lead i follow (a bit biblical, but i am just about to watch 'the passion')
Good idea. Isn't this something that should be initiated by central government? In the case of Wales, the Wales Office should take the lead, via the Joint Ministerial Committee.
Johnny F seems to have (and I use this phrase in connection with NM's article) a hard on for the Prof.
Does this guy care about anything else?
Isn't this something that should be initiated by central government?
No. Any number of think tanks, or perhaps the Constitution Unit would be a better vehicle. Central government should not be asked to act as both umpire and participant.
"No. Any number of think tanks, or perhaps the Constitution Unit would be a better vehicle. Central government should not be asked to act as both umpire and participant."
Can't use think tanks - they all have an agenda and are not answerable to parliament. Wales Office would surely be the correct vehicle.
What is needed is an independent and impartial assessment process. Government. Surely you see the difficulty involved in asking one government to audit itself in this way?
It may be that the NAO could carry it out.
"It may be that the NAO could carry it out."
Best not. The computer discs would get lost in transit.
Anonymous said...
Johnny F seems to have (and I use this phrase in connection with NM's article) a hard on for the Prof.
Does this guy care about anything else?
johnny says....
Thanks for your vulgar comment regarding my postings regarding Prof. Aylward and UNUM. Presumably, you are just another NuLab sock puppet.
You will find that my comment is entirely pertinent to the current thread and merely seeks to educate and inform those of our number who may be unaware of the Professor's "outlaw" associates.
I find it quite disturbing that, in the first instance, an associate of "outlaws" has been appointed by Edwina Hart, Health Minister, to reconfigure NHS Health Services, when his "outlaw" associates have a clearly stated intention to increase their markets within the UK. Secondly, there appears to be no specific announcement of the particular skills that qualify the Professor to undertake such duties, apart from, of course, the fact that he is a Merthyr 'boy'.
You may have noticed the awkward question that I have posed at a variety of venues, regarding Assembly or Westminster Governmental associations with a company who have been described as "outlaws".
You may have also noticed the complete avoidance of the question by many. This indicates to me that there is something about this matter that many in the political world would prefer to avoid addressing.
Our esteemed host, Mr. Mouth, also appears to been overcome with an attack of reticence with regard to this matter which, again, indicates to me a wish to avoid the matter.
As a guest, I would not wish to criticise Mr. Mouth for his avoidance of the question but, nonetheless, I feel a little disappointed that no response has materialised.
I am obviously aware that this matter is a political 'hot potato' but it has to be addressed at some time.
Yes, I do care about other matters which, for the time being, are, IMHO, secondary to what I see as a clear indication by the WAG and Westminster that they intend to facilitate the introduction of UNUM's questionable business methods into the NHS and DWP.
I hope that this explains my position clearly enough for you.
Your pal.
johnny.
It is clear to me that I have apparently touched on a matter that certain people would prefer to remain outside of public scrutiny.
Our esteemed host, Mr. Mouth, also appears to been overcome with an attack of reticence with regard to this matter
Not at all. I simply know nothing about the issue. I have not objected to you posting about it here - although it is very much is off-topic - and the fact of your own blog is evidence that the scrutiny that you regard as important for this issue.
Mr. Normal.
If you wish to learn more of the WAG/UNUM/Aylward issue, there is sufficient confirmatory evidence on the net to help you. You have no need to listen to me.
My purpose in making the WAG/UNUM/ Aylward posting was to show the 'lead' that Wales seems to be taking in devolved NHS matters by the involvement of UNUM's 'local agent', Prof. Aylward.
UNUM's self-stated aim is to increase their market in the UK and it seems to me that the devolved Welsh NHS responsibility is being used as a thin end of a very large wedge.
I'm sorry for any irritation caused but I truly believe that The WAG/UNUM/Aylward issue is a perfect indicator of the WAG's chosen devolutionary direction.
Your pal.
johnny.
Post a Comment