Do not resuscitate orders used against wishes, court to hear
Addenbrooke’s again. Given their track record, their denials are just trench warfare
Doctors twice placed ‘do not resuscitate’ orders on an accident victims’ medical notes against her and her family’s wishes, a court will hear.
Janet Tracey, 63, had been taken to hospital after being involved in a head-on car crash and suffering a broken neck, ribs and collar bone. She had been taken to Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in Welwyn but was transferred to specialist care at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge later the same day.
There, doctors twice placed orders that staff not attempt resuscitation if Mrs Tracey fell dangerous ill, against her wishes and that of her family. The trust denies that the first order was made or that the second was made without consent.
The case will be heard in the High Court to establish the facts of what happened.
Do not resuscitate or DNR’s are placed on medical records of patients who are seriously ill and in whom it is thought futile to attempt aggressive and potentially damaging life savings techniques if their heart or breathing stops. They can also be used at a patient’s request.
The grandmother to seven was otherwise well despite having been diagnosed with terminal cancer only weeks earlier.
However just over a week into her care at Addenbrooke’s, Mrs Tracey’s husband David alleged that a do not resuscitate order was placed on his wife’s records without her knowledge or consent.
The hospital trust disputes that.
When Mrs Tracey found out a DNR order had been placed on her file the family claim she was distressed and she asked for it to be removed, which it was.
Then less than a week later, a second DNR order was included in Mrs Tracey’s notes, which also included the phrase: “The patient does not want to discuss resuscitation.”
It continued that three of the four daughters had agreed to it. Both these claims the family disputes.
The family maintains that Janet made her wishes clear and that any future discussions should only happen with her husband present. No such discussions took place and the family alleges that they neither consented to it themselves nor had Janet’s permission to make that decision on her behalf.
During this time Janet wrote a series of notes as her voice became weaker. In them she expressed concern about the care she was being given, writing in uncharacteristic capital letters: ‘ SHE WOULDN’T GIVE ME ANYTHING’ and ‘WHERE HAS MY PAIN RELIEF GONE?’
The Court will hear that these distressing notes were written whilst medical notes state she was in a semi comatose state, another claim the family dispute.
Janet died on 7 March 2011.
The High Court hearing will involve witnesses being called, including the doctors involved, and cross-examined due to major factual discrepancies between the family of Janet Tracey and the staff from Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Merry Varney the lawyer from law firm Leigh Day & Co representing the Tracey family said: “This case underlines the importance of a transparent, accessible and consistent policy regarding a patient’s right to know when a decision not to resuscitate them is made and to know how their views are taken into account and where necessary, how to challenge a decision they disagree with.
“The family’s claims that Janet was not informed of either decision are supported by notes in her medical records and the very existence of this factual dispute that the Court will determine, supports the need for patients and their families to be fully informed of the decision making process for DNR orders.”
A spokesman for Cambridge University Hospitals said: “Our staff followed best practice in the care of Mrs Tracey. “We sympathise with the family on their loss. We have to disagree with the family in their recollection of the facts. We believe our staff acted at all times professionally and in the best interest of Mrs Tracey.”
Nursing grievances: It has become impossible to ignore the compassion deficit in today’s NHS
In 2008 Lord Mancroft was roundly criticised for daring to complain about the quality of nursing care he had experienced as a patient in Bath’s Royal United Hospital. In a House of Lords debate on NHS care, the Conservative peer had said he was appalled by the hygiene standards he witnessed on the wards and the poor quality of the nursing. He also spoke disparagingly of the personal behaviour of some of the nurses who had cared for him. David Cameron led the way in criticising his comments, saying that Lord Mancroft should have thought more carefully “before opening his mouth”.
Compare this reaction to that which greeted the Labour MP Ann Clwyd last week when she spoke movingly of the way her husband had died “like a battery hen” at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. Miss Clwyd talked of the “indifference and contempt” shown by nursing staff during her husband’s final days. Far from facing criticism, her words have touched a chord with the public. She said yesterday that she had been so overwhelmed by the public response she intends to campaign on the issue.
There are many excellent nurses in the NHS but it has long been apparent that poor nursing is not some isolated incident but is widespread in many hospitals. Something fundamental has gone wrong with the way nurses are trained and managed. Yet to say as much has, until now, invited the charge of being hostile to the health service. This heartfelt intervention by a prominent Labour politician may finally encourage a more realistic debate on the subject. It is significant that Jeremy Hunt chose to address the issue head-on recently in his first major speech as Health Secretary. Accepting that there is a problem has taken far too long. For the sake of the NHS, solutions must be found more speedily.
Problem British pupils to be given military-style training by ex-soldiers
Badly behaved pupils face being given military-style boot camp training under Government plans to draft former soldiers into schools, it was revealed today
Ex-servicemen will be employed to help instil teamwork, discipline and leadership skills among children expelled from mainstream education, it was announced.
Four projects – drawing on the expertise of former members of the Armed Forces – will be given taxpayer funding as part of a œ1.9 million programme designed to raise standards among difficult pupils.
The Government said it would lead to the use of “military-style obstacle courses to engage and motivate hard-to-reach pupils and help them understand how to transfer the elements which helped them succeed in the classroom”.
Ex-servicemen will also take part in one-to-one mentoring to help pupils address behaviour issues, run a range of indoor and outdoor team-building exercises and build confidence among primary schoolchildren about to make the step into secondary education.
It is the latest in a series of moves designed to bolster links between the Armed Forces and schools. Ministers have already expanded the number of school-based cadet forces and pledged almost œ11m to train former members of the Army, Navy and RAF as teachers.
Teachers’ leaders have criticised the deployment of ex-servicemen in the classroom, suggesting that schools risk being used as recruitment grounds for the Armed Forces. But Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said pupils – particularly those expelled from mainstream school – could benefit from the “values of a military ethos”.
It comes amid fears over a gulf in standards between excluded pupils and their peers. Last year, only 1.5 per cent of pupils in alternative education achieved at least five good GCSE including English and maths – about 40 times worse than children in mainstream schooling.
Mr Gove said: “Every child can benefit from the values of a military ethos. “Self-discipline and teamwork are at the heart of what makes our Armed Forces the best in the world – and are exactly what all young people need to succeed. “Exclusion from school should never mean exclusion from education.
“These projects are helping pupils in alternative provision reach their full potential and are helping to close the attainment gap.”
According to the Government, some œ600,000 of funding will go to Cheshire-based Commando Joes’, an organisation providing trained mentors for pupils in schools in the most deprived parts of Britain.
Another œ700,000 has been awarded to Challenger Troop in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, to provide leadership training for “disengaged pupils” aged eight to 16.
Knowsley Skills Academy has received œ400,000 to provide pupils with a programme of physical activities, team-building and work-related tuition to prepare them for post-16 education or employment. Newcastle-based SkillForce was awarded œ200,000 to provide a programme of outdoor challenges, focusing on secondary schools and feeder primaries.
Mike Hamilton, a former bomb disposal expert and director of Commando Joes’, said: “We teach children the skills we learned in the army. Not everyone wants to be a soldier, but the skills we learn in the military are brilliant and I think anybody can use them in any job.”
He added: “The instructors are all ex-military personnel – they are role models and kids look up to and aspire to be like them.
“When we go to a school playground children hang on every word. “In some of the deprived areas we work in, young people have not got grassy areas or anywhere to go. When they come to our sessions they get a chance to socialise in a different way, to be part of a team.”
Excluded British pupils find few opportunities outside mainstream state school
Thousands of pupils excluded from state schools are being deprived of the opportunity to gain qualifications that would help them build a future, according to children’s campaigners.
Permanent exclusion has always been the ultimate sanction for headteachers, subject to a final appeals process. Last year, there were 5,080 permanent exclusions from state schools. Since September, however, new legislation has made it much harder for parents and carers of excluded children to reverse a school’s decision or get it removed from a child’s records.
Many schools are reluctant to offer a place to a child who has been excluded from a nearby school as they have a duty to protect pupils from others who may be disruptive. Most excluded children are sent to local-authority-run Pupil Referral Units (PRU), where places cost upwards of œ16,000 a year, compared with around œ4,500 for a place at a mainstream school. In spite of the high cost, PRU pupils are only able to take a limited range of courses.
The units provide a limited careers service and no sixth-form facilities. Despite supportive teachers, bad behaviour is often the norm and vulnerable children are free to mix with other disruptive pupils.
A study by the independent thinktank, Demos, found that only 1% of excluded children received the equivalent of five A* to C grades at GCSE level, compared with 70% of pupils who remained in school. According to the Department of Education, pupils with special educational needs are around nine times more likely to be excluded permanently. Children who are eligible for free school meals are almost four times more likely.
Scout Pedley, 15, was expelled last month from Swakeleys School, Uxbridge, for persistent breaches of the school behaviour code, which included, she says, wearing non-regulation trousers, swearing at a teacher and banging a school door violently. She had been on track to get 13 GCSEs and was in the top 20% of her year group. Her appeal has been rejected and she is now at a Pupil Referral Unit.
This means that, just months before sitting her GCSEs, she has run into a major roadblock. “I am taking Maths, English – trying to get a science – ICT, art and that’s it. It’s gone from 13 GCSEs to four or five. I have a lot more free time and they don’t give out homework. I still want to be an accountant. It’s just going to be harder.”
Sarah Hannett, the director of the City University/Matrix School Exclusion Project, which provides free legal representation to parents of children who have been excluded, says: “It’s a scandal. A disproportionate number of excluded pupils have special needs, or are in care. Plus, kids simply can’t get a new place that gives them full access to the curriculum.”
Scout says she “wasn’t an angel” but says “doesn’t deserve to be put in this situation”. Her mother, Mandie, says: “She just wants to go back to school, finish her exams and leave at end of year 11, go to college and carry on. Obviously, that’s been blown out of the window. You only get one shot at it.”
Britain gives millions in ‘climate aid’ to tackle flatulent Colombian cows… plus £31m to Turkish wind farms and funding for talks with Kenyan ‘rain-makers’
Millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is to be spent on a scheme aimed at reducing the flatulence of Colombian cattle, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
A £15 million grant to ranchers and other organisations in the South American country is part of a £2.9 billion package of ‘climate aid’ to developing countries which critics have called ‘ludicrous’.
The initiative aims to improve animal diets by cultivating trees and plants on their grazing lands – in doing so reducing the amount of methane escaping through belching and flatulence.
As well as being seen as a waste of money, the scheme has darker undertones, with The Mail on Sunday learning that the recipients, Colombian ranchers’ organisation Fedegan, has been linked to a murderous paramilitary group.
Our investigation unearthed:
* A total of £14 million of climate aid finance to projects in Uganda, despite the Government recently stopping all aid to the country because of corruption.
* £31 million of British money going to Turkey – a middle-ranking economy – to help develop geo-thermal and wind power.
* The Department for International Development (DFID) funding meetings between tribal ‘rain-makers’ and meteorologists in Kenya.
Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said: ‘After an Autumn Statement where people are making significant cuts, to have a £2.9 billion budget for a random collection of projects which have questions hanging over them as to whether or not they are corrupt is just an extraordinary waste of money.
‘The Government does not exist to make charitable donations – that’s something people should do privately. We’re looking for a further £10 billion of cuts and this seems to me the easiest place to start.’
Fedegan is one of three bodies due to share £15 million to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The group has long been linked to the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC), a collection of far-Right paramilitary groups designated a terrorist organisation by the United States and the European Union.
Hundreds of Fedegan’s farmers have been accused of helping to fund the AUC. Though supposedly demobilised in 2006, the paramilitaries have held on to their weapons and now operate as criminal gangs responsible for hundreds of assassinations and kidnappings.
Former Fedegan president Jorge Visbal Martelo was arrested in March over his alleged links to paramilitary groups. He is awaiting trial on conspiracy charges. Current president Jose Felix Lafaurie has denied the paramilitary links.
But in an article published this year, the respected Colombian weekly Semana asked: ‘How deep-rooted is corruption in Fedegan?’
The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) left such questions to the World Bank, which concluded that Fedegan was a ‘suitable partner’.
Another recipient of UK climate funding is Uganda, where £14 million will go to ‘small-scale projects’, mainly to generate hydro-electricity. The country was recently placed top of the East African bribery index – and 40 per cent of its citizens are said to have experienced bribery in dealings with the police, the judiciary, tax and land authorities.
One of the biggest recipients of Government climate finance is the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund (CTF), to which the UK has given or pledged £620 million.
The CTF bankrolls projects from Thailand to South Africa, and is spending £155 million on renewable energy schemes in relatively wealthy Turkey.
Another recipient of UK taxpayers’ money was a £25 million research study, part of which involved teaming meteorologists with ‘rain- makers’ in western Kenya.
They make their predictions by watching the movement of ants and the measuring the wind using the tops of earthenware bottles.
Last night DECC said that supporting developing countries in cutting emissions was a ‘sensible investment’, and added that ‘turning our back’ could ‘cause a range of impacts including conflict over resources, political upheaval and more extreme weather events’.
Questioned on Fedegan, it said it was ‘satisfied’ with the World Bank’s ‘thorough assessment’ and that the tree-planting idea had been shown to be successful.
Turkey, the DECC said, was a ‘middle income country’ and so eligible for funding, while the money for Uganda was not passing through the country’s government, but through the private sector, with protocols in place to prevent corruption.
Opposition to a policy is “hate” (?)
The British Left assert that opposition to British policies that attract millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, has to be “hate”. But that is getting to sound very hollow in Britain today. But Leftists always resort to abuse when they have no arguments. The guy featured below seems to be some flavour of Trotskyite. Amusing that preaching against real Muslim hate “seems complex”
With the rise of UKIP, and immigration reform back on the agenda, The Huffington Post UK meets Nick Lowles, director of anti-fascist campaigners Hope Not Hate, on one of the UK’s most toxic political issues.
For a man who campaigns against extreme hate speech, Nick Lowles inspires a lot of it.
Online, he’s called a communist, a censor of free speech, a Zionist, a Muslim apologist, and an Islamophobe, and his attackers range from BNP supporters to Islamists.
It’s what can happen when you head an organisation such as Hope Not Hate, which targets extremism and hate speech.
Lowles is clear that his organisation cannot just speak out against the far right, but against any movement or individual who incites hatred, be they hate-preaching bishops or imans, or even mainstream politicians.
And he’s had to learn to deal with the hate that comes back in his direction, from those he targets, including the British National Party, the English Defence League, Muslim extremists, and the far-left too.
“I’ve been doing it 20 years, I’ve grown myself a thick skin. No-one likes the criticism, from Nazis or from people on the left. But you get used to it.
“And, at the end of the day, you can’t ignore it. You have to look at whether the criticisms are valid, but also have faith in your ideas.”
Lowles, a former editor of Searchlight (he cut official ties with that anti-fascist organisation last year), founded Hope Not Hate in 2004, to organise communities against the rise in popularity of the BNP.
The group has grown fast, and won ardent celebrity backers like Lord Alan Sugar, Amir Khan, Dermot O’Leary and comedian Eddie Izzard.
But the fight against extremism in 2012, Lowles says, is now changing focus. The BNP is close to total defeat, underlined by their performance in the Rotherham by-election a week ago.
“In Rotherham they got 8% of vote,” Lowles said. “It should have been a strong area for them, they had councillors there in the past, Denis MacShane [the Labour MP for Rotherham] departed after a scandal.
“And of course they have been exploiting the grooming issue, the case which was so horrific in Rotherham.
“But there was so much media attention on UKIP. I think the BNP could have got 15% of the vote, but it’s clear some voters switched to UKIP, they’re seen as more likely alternative.”
Lowles believes the BNP are in their “weakest position they’ve been in for many years, which is surprising given the economy and the continued distrust of mainstream parties. He says the BNP have not really recovered from 2010, when they raised the expectations of their supporters, and completely failed to deliver. “Many of their newer supporters just dropped out.
“And then at the same time, you have the rise of the EDL, much more attractive to a lot of young people. Handing out leaflets, doing respectable election campaigning doesn’t really appeal to them.”
But the BNP cannot be ignored, and Hope Not Hate is gearing up to attempt to dislodge leader Nick Griffin in the 2014 MEP elections.
Lowles is worried that even though the BNP has lost support, the party’s ideas and concerns still permeate many communities. “The conditions that gave rise to them, are still there and getting worse.
“And we have to understand why people voted for the BNP, it was not just about racism or immigration. It was the anti-party politics movement. “The longer we leave that vacuum, some is going to come back to fill it.”
The concern is that younger anti-immigration activists flock to the militant EDL, while mainstream parties, like UKIP and even the Conservatives, look to take on the anti-immigration mantle which attracted older, traditional voters of the BNP.
Lowles’ answer is to lobby mainstream parties on the way they address immigration – and encourage progressive voices to take a stand.
“People see the “extremist” parties as value parties. My dad was a Labour party man, loyal, very active, an local organiser. And he said to me a few years ago “what does the Labour party stand for?”
“He had to go looking for the mission statement on the website. And for my dad to say that, it really hits you.”
The rhetoric of the Conservative party, particularly in the wake of the challenge from UKIP, and the appointment of controversial right-wing, anti-immigration campaign advisor Lynton Crosby, has worried Hope Not Hate.
“Even in the last few days we have seen all sorts of really right-wing views on immigration coming out. And that poses a challenge for Labour.
“On the one hand they can move into the middle, move right-wing, and show voters they can also get tough on immigration.
“But I think demographics of voters in Britain are changing. That’s what happened in the US, with Latino voters.
“A progressive alliance forced Obama to change his views on certain issues. He went in on a pretty conservative platform, he ended up announcing immigration reform, the DREAM act, a product of years of campaigning.
“That needs to happen to our politicians in Britain. We need to call them out on things like immigration, child detention, scare them a bit. They can’t ignore these issues.
“But it feels like a daunting task to go on the offensive about immigration, against the negativity, to talk about the positives.”
Ed Miliband ‘must stand up to the negativity on immigration’
Hope Not Hate has come under attack from both left and right in the aftermath of the grooming scandals in the north of England, in Keighley, Rochdale and Rotherham.
It has been accused both of ignoring the issue, and, particularly by the Institute of Race Relations’s executive director Liz Fekete, of not taking a hard enough line against the racial narrative in the press.
The group produced leaflets to combat the far-right’s anti-Islam campaigning in the aftermath, which “clearly state that a minority of British Muslims are involved in grooming but it will stress that this is a tiny minority of Muslims and it is wrong to blame a whole community.
It is an issue the organisation has struggled with, but it shouldn’t be so difficult, Lowles said.
“It’s undeniable that a lot of those perpetrators come from the British Pakistani community, when it comes to street grooming by gangs. Does that tell us something about Islam or Pakistanis? No it does not. “I strongly believe this is not about race.
“But the problem is, left unchallenged, these become real racial issues. There are eight or nine big trials concerning this pattern next year, each time there are going to be issues to be taken on.”
Hope Not Hate also campaigns against Anjm Choudry’s Islamic extremism
He encounters charges of hypocrisy regularly on doorsteps, which has made the organisation more determined to campaign on other areas of extreme hate.
“People say to us on doorstops, you campaign agains the English Defence League, but you don’t say anything on Muslims. And we have to. In Tower Hamlets we have campaigned against Hizt-bu-Tahrir [widely perceived an an extreme Islamic movement].
“We have campaigned against Anjem Choudry [Islam4UK and Muslims Against Crusades], and imams are grateful to us that we do. We will be working with mosques in Luton on anti-extremism tactics.
“It seems complex but it shouldn’t be. If someone preaches hate, we will stand up against it.”
There may not always be an England
Q. When does the British government subsidize a TV channel that carries the rants of anti-gay religious fanatics?
A. When the TV channel is run by Islamist extremists.
OK, that one was a softball. But it’s worth pointing out a telling contrast in the British government’s stance on people’s right to think unapproved thoughts about homosexuality.
Here is what Mr. Abdullah Hakim Quick, a speaker who has been featured on Britain’s Ramadan TV, has to say about gays:
Abdullah Hakim Quick … has been condemned by New Zealand’s broadcasting authority for his anti-gay tirades, which state that homosexuals must be killed, that they are “sick” and “not natural”, and that “Muslims are going to have to take a stand [against homosexuals] and it’s not enough to call names.” He continues to hold this position: “They said ‘what is the Islamic position [on homosexuality]?’ And I told them. Put my name in the paper. The punishment is death. And I’m not going to change this religion.”
The National Health Service’s North East London & the City agency responded to this editorial posture by subsidizing Ramadan TV to the tune of £3,200. Sam Westrop at the Gatestone Institute (first link) gives other examples of bloodthirsty extremism from the talking heads on Ramadan TV. Homosexuality, however, is the topic that highlights the unequal treatment now being accorded to citizens of the UK.
Islamist anti-gay ranters may find their media outlets subsidized by British government agencies, but foster parents who merely can’t agree to endorse homosexuality to children under the age of 10 are denied any further opportunities to take in foster children. Such was the judgment of the Derby City Council against Owen and Eunice Johns in 2010. The council’s decision on the matter was upheld by the British High Court in February 2011.
The organization Christian Concern summarized the court’s findings at the time. The [High Court] judges stated:
* That if children are placed with parents who have traditional Christian views like the Johns “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children”,
* That there is a tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation. Yet, as regards fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence”,
* That a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality,
* That there is no religious discrimination against the Johns because they were being excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs (This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs), and
* That “Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children”.
So, it is clear that if you are Christian and don’t endorse homosexuality, you will be denied participation in government-regulated activities – even if you state, as Eunice Johns did, that you have no animus against gays. But if you are an Islamist organization and your featured speakers advocate death for homosexuals, you can be subsidized by a government agency – that is, by the UK taxpayer.
Of course, when one thing goes wrong with a society, everything else does too. It’s worth noting the news that some Jewish students at the University of Edinburgh have had to decide to leave school, due to an alarmingly unpleasant campus atmosphere created by radical Islamists and anti-Israel groups. This is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s, among other things.
Scotland, like England, once produced philosophers of freedom, tolerance, rationality, and equality before the law. But the noble British tradition from which America drew so much is close to extinction in its birthplace. It’s easy to blame radical Muslims for this, but the truth is that the Brits, like the rest of the West, have done it to themselves with a nihilistic radical-left philosophy. The same city councilmen who denied foster parenting to the Johns couple would quite probably dismiss Mr. Quick’s anti-gay rant with a hand-wave and a naively Orwellian phrase or two about “diversity.” The reign of irrational, hysterical sentiment is complete – and every word in its charter document was written by the Western left.
John Bull was once a canny and tough old fellow. But he set aside principle for sentiment, and today, he is on life-support.
Weren’t the Tories supposed to call off the watchdogs?
Another day, another watchdog gets on its hind legs and barks disapproval about a Coalition measure. Today it’s Ofqual’s turn. The outfit, which oversees exams, has warned Michael Gove that his English baccalaureate exam is “unworkable”.
At least Ofqual is not parti-pris: look at their website and you’ll find the Chair of the board is Amanda Spielman, associated with ARK, the education charity that has sponsored a number of academies. In other words, as watchdogs go, Ofqual is a well-behaved puppy (though no poodle).
While Ofqual can’t be branded a Lefty cabal, the same isn’t true of other quangos. Ofcom, the media regulator, came under scrutiny during the Leveson inquiry. Its membership is so uniformly liberal-Left that Tory papers fear for their future. Ditto, the Media Standards Trust. And what of the Electoral Commission which bungles – sorry I mean oversees – elections? Even Save the Children is not the innocuous feelgood little charity you’d think: its chief executive Justin Forsyth served as a Labour strategy chief under Gordon Brown.
Yes, quangos outlive governments – but what is peculiar about Britain’s quangos is that the great majority were appointed under Labour. Begotten under Blair, they multiplied under Brown. There was a reason for this: Gordon Brown, as Fraser Nelson outlined earlier this year in the Telegraph, understood that building a network of placement would ensure a client state that votes Labour forever more.
The worrying thing is that quangos don’t just play party politics. They spend lots of money. Look at Ofcom’s spending and you’d think that, despite the Autumn Budget forecast, there was money to throw around.
The Coalition boasted they would dismantle the quango state. Sadly, they have failed in their mission. It’s a failure that will make things difficult while they’re in power – and long after.