Human and Financial Cost of Medical Negligence

Sir




Why, given the high number of unnecessary mastectomies performed
by Ian Paterson, did his life-changing surgical interventions did not 
result in earlier action by the two Spire clinics and Heart of England
NHS Trust and suspension by the General Medical Council?

Times article (Comment, April 29) quotes The Kings Fund:"Surgery is not a 
solitary act." In this case it clearly was with the key imperative of the Hippocratic
Oath: "Do no harm", completely ignored. The article goes on to state that
"safe effective surgery is team-based, with accountability and empowerment
distributed across the team".

Instead, events clearly point to a rogue surgeon practising with reckless
arrogance, unconstrained by a complete systemic lack of supervision. Public 
confidence in healthcare professionals is affected. Human misery is compounded
by the fact that, to date, £18 million has been paid to Ian Paterson's victims, part 
of the £56 billion - almost half of the NHS budget - set aside to meet future
claims for medical negligence, at a time of existential crisis. As always, the 
lawyers are main beneficiaries. In 2016 they received £418 million.

Conservative Government in Name Only

Mrs May's refusal to rule out capital gains' tax on high-value homes is a
reminder that we have a Conservative government in name only. The
suggested threshold of £5m would merely be a staging post for 
establishing the principle for taxing primary residences.

If the figure were not indexed, over time, the effect of inflation would be
to push more homes over the threshold and make them liable for tax.
In addition, the government of the day could say that the £5m threshold
was not generating enough revenue to cover accelerating public spending
and reduce it accordingly. The knock-on effect such a move on an already
stagnant housing market, job-mobility and the wider economy can only
be imagined.

Artificial Intelligence to revolutionise world of work

As "Future Work" (Times leader, February, 15) predicts, advanced automation
will transform employment and society in ways we can only begin to imagine.

Globally, we are now witnessing the birth of the fourth industrial revolution: the
age of accelerating artificial intelligence, of learning machines that possess 
vastly superior cognitive skills to the human brain. They will design and operate
highly-complex nano and macro-technology systems, which will completely
revolutionise and challenge our way of life

Anything that can be systemised will be, the objective being to engineer the cost
of labour out of manufacturing and other processes. The result, as Mark Carey
has said, will be up to 15m job losses, half the UK workforce, including 85,000 public
sector jobs automated by 2030.

Of course, new job opportunities will arise, but not at a rate fast enough to
absorb the huge swathes of displaced employees, not just in low-skilled jobs,
but also in professional employment and this will impact on consumption. The ability
to consume is key to the functioning of a free-market economy and if the 
unemployed are unable to consume, how will taxes be raised to support the
social infrastructure? As your piece points out, the Swiss recently held a 
referendum on whether to introduce a basic wage for everyone, but this
concept seems totally inadequate in addressing what is an existential threat.






























Sent from my iPad

Common Purpose - the secretive organisation that runs Britain

Sir

The circumstances of Sir Ivan Rogers' departure certainly play to
stereotype of an entitled establishment' running the country.
The EU referendum has seen widespread mobilisation
in the public sector by those who wish to deny the British people their wish
to leave a failed construct, which is not fit for purpose.

However, the intransigent attitude of some senior civil servants suggests a wider
narrative. It is symptomatic of an anti-democratic sphere of influence, where
whatever the stripe of the government in power, a clandestine organisation
known as 'Common Purpose' attempts to thwart the democratic will - in
this case the triggering of Article 50 and forcing a second referendum.

The influence of Common Purpose is extensive and constant. Its common
purpose as far as Britain's EU membership is concerned is to infiltrate the
Brussels ethos into UK institutions, in order to prevent change.

Few will have heard of Common Purpose. It is a charity that selects
and trains future leaders of society. It has enormous power across the NHS,
BBC, police, church and many of Britain's 8,500 quangos.CP alumni are trained 
to lead outside elected authority and influence government policy.

Theresa May's walk in the park

.


Theresa May will be looking forward to her walk in the park when Sophie
Ridge interviews her on Sunday. Doesn't the viewer deserve something 
better than a young fairly inexperienced interviewer to cross-examine
the prime minister on key issues at this critical time for the country?

COMMON PURPOSE AND ITS ANTI-DEOCRATIC AIMS

The UK establishment is perhaps the most secretive in the free world.
The Times leader 'Open Justice' in a recent edition scratches only the
surface of an anti-democratic process that means that whatever the
political stripe of the government in power the influence of an
organisation known as 'Common Purpose' remains constant. Its
common purpose as far as Britain's EU membership is concerned
has been to infiltrate the Brussels ethos into UK institutions, in order
to prevent change.

Few will have even heard of 'Common Purpose'. It is a charity that selects
and trains future leaders of society and it has enormous clandestine
power across the NHS, BBC, police, church and many of Britain's
8,500 quangos. CP alumni are trained to lead outside authority and pervert
the democratic process. They are given positions of unaccountable
authority with gold-plated salaries, so long as they stay on message.
Even dangerous mistakes result not in dismissal, but only a move
sideways, or even promotion. There is a whole catalogue 
of examples,
past and present, of which your readers will be only too well aware.

Until UK governance, in all its forms, is made more transparent and
accountable, our democracy will remain something of a sham.

Commnetators are right to suggest that we may be 

approaching a tipping-point, where raising taxes 
becomes counter productive.

Evidence suggests that there is an inverse 
relationship between the tax rate and the amount 
of revenue collected. The higher the tax rate the 
lower the Government's revenue In making the 
case for lower taxes, we need only look to the 
Russian Federation, following the demise of the 
Soviet Union in 

1991. In order to invigorate a sclerotic economy, 
the introduction of a flat tax resulted in a 25% rise 
in revenue from personal income tax, followed by 
a similar increase in the second year and 15% in 
year three.

The Laffer curve predicts such an outcome, 
attributing the primary reason for increased 
revenues to higher levels of economic growth, 
stemming from the introduction of the flat tax. If 
the UK Government were to adopt this model it 

would also benefit the exchequer by increasing 
declared income and reducing bureaucracy by 
simplifying the way tax is calculated and collected.

 A flat tax would have a transformative effect on 
employers and employees alike. It would 
incentivise, generate growth, boost consumer 
confidence and raise living standards.