By stewartb
Before leaving the BBC’s day of NHS coverage behind, its News website article entitled ‘The hospitals struggling the most as winter bites‘ reports this:
‘Alongside the data on handover times, figures released on Thursday showed: 30% of patients waited longer than the target time of four hours in A&E in November.’ So, 70% of attendances met the 4-hour standard – wow, is that the best in the UK?
Well no, the BBC is ‘AT IT’ again! This is what the just published NHS England report actually reveals about A&E waiting times in November, 2023:
* 55.4% of patients were seen within 4 hours in type 1 A&E departments compared to 55.9% in October 2023 and 54.5% in November 2022 – this is THE KEY METRIC used by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) and others when discussing A&E waits and also when making comparative assessments between the NHS in different parts of the UK
* for context, attendances at type 1 A&E departments in England were 0.7% lower in November 2023 when compared with November 2022.
For perspective, in NHS Scotland’s ‘main’ emergency departments (regarded by the RCEM and others as the equivalents of England’s Type 1 departments), the weekly data releases for November 2023 reveal that THE 4-HOUR STANDARD WAS ACHIEVED WITH BETWEEN 60.8% AND 65.1% OF ATTENDANCES. (See the NHS Performs website.)
Even Scotland’s 60.8% is substantially better than England’s 55.4% but the BBC sees no relevance in this comparison! Voters in Scotland would have no interest in learning this from the BBC would they? But the BBC does regard information that problems with ambulance waits are just as bad across the UK as in England is relevant to broadcast (see my earlier btl post)?
The aforementioned BBC News website article omitted to mention this for NHS England:
* Of all the total attendances (at Type 1 and Type 2 departments) in November 2023, 145,000 waited more than 12 hours from arrival at A&E i.e. 10.9% of attendances.
The weekly performance data for NHS Scotland reveal that DURING NOVEMBER BETWEEN 5.0% AND 6.7% OF PATIENTS ATTENDING THE ‘MAIN’ EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS SPENT 12 HOURS OR MORE THERE.
Even Scotland’s 6.7% is substantially better than England’s 10.9% but the BBC sees no relevance in this comparison! Voters in Scotland would have no interest in learning this from the BBC would they? But the BBC regards information that problems with ambulance waits are just as bad across the UK as in England is relevant to broadcast (see my earlier btl post)?
In a busy day for the BBC on NHS matters there has been ZERO politicisation of poor performance in NHS England, no Westminster government involvement whatsoever as far as I can find. By contrast, I’ve just heard a UK evening news bulletin on Radio 4. It had a couple of sentences – without context, without perspective – covering Scotland’s Deputy FM ‘apologising’ for NHS Scotland’s ambulance services.
And where is HM’s Official Opposition in Westminster in all this? Silent it seems. Might this be because it’s vulnerable to Tory taunts about the performance of the NHS in Labour-governed Wales? BBC viewers/listeners/readers may never know!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
Has there ever been a more orchestrated campaign by a Western nation’s media to destroy the general population’s perception of the party in power?
Every single day at the moment, the headline is, “Look at how shite your government is!”
The elephant in the room is Westminster…cough ..cough…SNP bad.
LikeLike
Yes!!! Hitler and The Nazi Party!!!
This extract from The Holocaust Explained.
“ Whilst Hitler was in prison following the Munich Putsch in 1923, Alfred Rosenberg took over as temporary leader of the Nazi Party. Rosenberg was an ineffective leader and the party became divided over key issues.
The failure of the Munich Putsch had shown Hitler that he would not be able to take power by force. Hitler therefore decided to change tactic and instead focus on winning support for his party democratically and being elected into power.
Following his release from prison on the 20 December 1924, Hitler convinced the Chancellor of Bavaria to remove the ban on the Nazi Party.
In February 1926, Hitler organised the Bamberg Conference. Hitler wanted to reunify the party, and set out a plan for the next few years. Whilst some small differences remained, Hitler was largely successful in reuniting the socialist and nationalist sides of the party.
In the same year, Hitler restructured the Nazi Party to make it more efficient.
Firstly, the Nazi Party adopted a new framework, which divided Germany into regions called Gaue. Each Gaue had its own leader, a Gauleiter. Each Gaue was then divided into subsections, called Kreise. Each Kreise then had its own leader, called a Kreisleiter. Each Kreise was then divided into even smaller sections, each with its own leader, and so on. Each of these sections were responsible to the section above them, with Hitler at the very top of the party with ultimate authority.
The Nazis also established new groups for different professions, from children, to doctors, to lawyers. These aimed to infiltrate already existing social structures, and help the party gain more members and supporters.
These political changes changed the Nazi Party from a paramilitary organisation focused on overthrowing the republic by force, to one focused on gaining power through elections and popular support.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Does this ring any bells…….probably alarm bells!!!
The role of the conservative elite in the Nazi rise to power
The conservative elite were the old ruling class and new business class in Weimar Germany. Throughout the 1920s they became increasingly frustrated with the Weimar Republic’s continuing economic and political instability, their lack of real power and the rise of communism. They believed that a return to authoritarian rule was the only stable future for Germany which would protect their power and money.
The first move towards this desired authoritarian rule was Hindenburg’s increasing use of Article 48 . Between 1925-1931 Article 48 was used a total of 16 times. In 1931 alone this rose to 42 uses, in comparison to only 35 Reichstag laws being passed in the same year. In 1932, Article 48 was used 58 times.
The conservative elite’s second move towards authoritarian rule was helping the Nazi Party to gain power. The conservative elite and the Nazi Party had a common enemy – the political left .
As Hitler controlled the masses support for the political right, the conservative elite believed that they could use Hitler and his popular support to ‘democratically’ take power. Once in power, Hitler could destroy the political left. Destroying the political left would help to remove the majority of political opponents to the ring-wing conservative elite.
Once Hitler had removed the left-wing socialist opposition and destroyed the Weimar Republic, the conservative elite thought they would be able to replace Hitler, and appoint a leader of their choice.
As Hitler’s votes dwindled in the November 1932 elections, the conservative elite knew that if they wanted to use Hitler and the Nazis to destroy the political left, they had to act quickly to get Hitler appointed as chancellor.
Von Papen and Oskar von Hindenburg (President Hindenburg’s son) met secretly and backed Hitler to become chancellor. A group of important industrialists, including Hjalmar Schacht and Gustav Krupp, also wrote outlining their support of Hitler to President Hindenburg.
The support of these figures was vital in Hindenburg’s decision to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Once elected, the conservative elite soon realised that they had miscalculated Hitler and his intentions.
Despite the party restructure, the reorganisation of the SA and the initial development of their propaganda under Goebbels, the Nazi Party gained very little in the 1928 elections. They won just 2.6% of the vote, gaining them 12 seats in the Reichstag.
The following year however, the Wall Street Crash and the resulting economic and political instability swung the conservative elite and electorate in their favour. Goebbels carefully tailored propaganda slowly became considerably more attractive.
In 1930, the Nazis attracted eight times more votes than in 1928. They managed to secure 18.3% of the vote, and 107 seats in the Reichstag. The continuing failure of the government to stabilise the situation only increased the Nazis popularity.
In February 1932, Hitler ran against Hindenburg to become president. Goebbel’s propaganda campaign presented Hitler as a new, dynamic and modern leader for Germany. To emphasise this point, Hitler flew from venue to venue via aeroplane. Hitler lost the election, with 36.8% of the vote to Hindenburg’s 53%. Despite losing, people now viewed Hitler as a credible politician.
Following another Reichstag election in July 1932, the Nazis became the largest party with 230 seats and 37.3% of the vote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Our Germany Correspondent, Professor Johannes von Roberstiltskin, is delighted with the above comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person