Perhaps politicians should drink more tea!

As a big cricket fan, I found that yesterday’s events at the England/India test match provided a fascinating insight to human behaviour and the concept of ‘play nice’

Briefly – due to some confusion as to whether a ball had gone for four runs (i.e. hit the boundary ate the edge of the field), the England batsman Ian Bell was technically run out when an Indian fielder removed the stumps as the batsman was leaving the ground for the tea break at the end of the afternoon session. It was a simple misunderstanding – England thought the ball was out of play and India took advantage of the situation to claim a sneaky, but entirely legal wicket. The umpire confirmed the out decision which was within the rules, if not the spirit of the game.

‘Just not cricket’ a phrase used in the UK, and maybe overseas, describes ungentlemanly behaviour in any context and this incident was ‘just not cricket’. But in the true spirit of the game, after a cup of tea, India withdrew their appeal, Bell was reprieved, and resumed batting in the next session. The very sporting decision of the Indian team was praised universally and Phil Tufnell, a BBC commentator said ‘I think after a cup of tea the right decision was made’. Laugh out loud – what a wonderfully British comment!

But joking apart – maybe we shouldn’t underestimate the value of a cup of tea. I remember when my daughter was five years old there was a news item about the troubles in Northern Ireland and she asked me to explain why people were fighting. I did my best and then she said – ‘perhaps they should just have a nice cup of tea and sort it out’. If only. Bless.

With brinkmanship threatening the deal between the Democrats and Republicans to raise the US debt ceiling and the bickering amongst the UK coalition regarding NHS reforms, how good would it be if all these people just ‘played nice’?

How great if every time one politician slated another or one stakeholder belittled another – there was a shout of ‘hey that’s just not cricket’

And how wonderful if all these discordant groups really could just sit down and have a nice cup of tea and sort things out.

Apart from the ‘time out’ effect that having a cup of tea can have, the benefits of this age old beverage are manifold and well documented. The European Journal of Clinical Nutrition reports that tea does not dehydrate but it actually rehydrates just as well as water and also protects against heart disease and cancers. The anti-oxidants have been shown to prevent cell damage, protect against tooth decay and strengthens bones.

Other suggested benefits are to boost immune system, increase alertness and lower stress hormone levels.

So there you have it. Sport so often reflects society in general and in the silly season for news I make a plea to all those involved in heated debate regarding health and finance especially – play nice and drink more tea!

NHS Reform – 'cut and paste' politics

For a few weeks I have been avoiding watching the BBC coverage of proceedings in Parliament because the waffle and posturing by the majority of MPs makes me tense. But as the Health and Social Care Bill has been going through recommittal proceedings this week, I felt I should tune in to BBC Parliament, and the weekly political panel show, Question Time, to make sure that I stay on track with the progress (and I use the term loosely) of the Bill.

Recommittal sadly puts me in mind of funerals and the ‘committal stage’ and I must confess that following the political melee of this Bill has a similarly depressing effect on me. Alas, politics is hampering, not facilitating NHS Reform.

The debate in Parliament on Tuesday was to pass a motion for the Bill to be ‘recommitted to a public bill committee for reconsideration’. Approximately 160 amendments are being made to the Bill, incorporating changes to 63 clauses and 6 schedules, a significant rethink on the content of the original Bill.

The debate was meaningless, as this recommittal was fully supported by the coalition so this was a rubber stamping exercise to allow the Bill to progress to Public Committee. Even though there were very few MPs in the House for the discussion, which was limited to one hour, I found the spectacle unusually entertaining.

Andrew Lansley, UK Secretary of State for Health, allowed another Health Minister, Simon Burns to do the talking. Burns rambled on at the outset with the usual political schpeel and was admonished by the Speaker (for overseas readers – the speaker ‘controls’ MPs during parliamentary sessions) for wasting time and not specifying the point of the motion. He may have been trying to use as much of the allocated hour to splurging soundbites to avoid discussion and his performance was petulant, grumpy and defensive. He talked of a ‘bottom up culture of clinical leadership’. I have no idea what that actually means and could only think of proctology!

Burns continued ‘while the pause has finished, we will never stop listening’ … mmm – why don’t I find that reassuring?

John Healey, Labour Health Minister, was much more eloquent and persuasive. Admittedly – it is so much easier to be in opposition when it comes to a gritty issue like the state funded health service, but even so, he spoke with confidence and conviction. The Labour line was that the entire Bill should be reconsidered as changes reviewed out of context do not give a clear picture of how the reforms will ultimately work. He talked about ‘A wasted year of chaos and incompetence’ and the ‘sclerosis of the health service’ and sadly I agree.

John Pugh of the Lib Dems got up to support the amendments but wasn’t convincing and it struck me in a moment of madness how wonderful it would be to have a free vote on NHS Reforms, with no party Whip to bully MPs into agreement. Now that would be an interesting debate

BBC Question Time was equally depressing. What was once a lively panel show with political and topical debate – it is usually now a deadly regurgitation of party political speak and ‘on the fence’ opinions. One consensus view was that the Coalition, rather than impressing the general and political population with their listening skills and flexibility, are constantly weakening their position with a succession of U-turns. These U-turns include privatisation of forests, sentencing policy, defence cuts and university tuition fees. So moving the goal posts on NHS Reform seems like just one more change of heart. Indeed the coalition seemed to have made more U-turns than a motorist with a malfunctioning Sat Nav!

But The NHS is different. Why? For two main reasons Firstly, the vast sums of money involved, year in, year out and secondly because this Bill effects each and every one of us. Even the fabulously rich get taken to an NHS hospital in an emergency. This is just too important to get wrong.

The politics have confused the issue. The Public Bill Committee will now be reviewing only part of the Bill. For instance only the amended clauses involving Monitor, the regulatory body, will be reviewed, out of context of the total responsibilities. Cut and pasted reports rarely work and a ‘cut and paste’ parliamentary Bill should not be the way forward

We are no nearer a real solution to NHS woes. Some units are ‘business as usual’, some GP practices are staffing up for consortia whose remit may now change, some agencies are continuing, with fewer staff, to undertake functions they expected no longer to deliver. The politics go on. The Lb Dems try to take credit for a U-turn, the Tories try to show they are still listening and Labour enjoy something to get their teeth into in opposition.

Meanwhile the NHS lumbers on – a rudderless ship whose crew are doing their level best to keep afloat while the admirals play chess.