Why can we no longer have opinions

We have four weeks left of the 2017 General Election campaigns before we get a chance to vote and I’m not looking forward to that time. Notwithstanding the endless paper we receive from each party, it is the aggression towards anyone with a different view that worries and annoys me. It has even got to the stage were journalists are being booed for asking questions. It’s no wonder most politicians hide themselves away or only speak in front of scripted audiences

I wondered where this all started, as it is not a sudden phenomenon. Looking back, I think the culture created in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s by then then Labour Government information machine is where it became a mainstream idea. Whatever the policies of the Government were is not relevant, nor is the fact that they ran a very efficient and tight information machine in getting their message out; but it is the grip they had over getting the concept of right or wrong into subjective argument that was their greatest achievement. If you add that to 24hour news repeating stories ad infinitum and the rise of social media and thin skinned keyboard warriors, it has just extended the idea.

The change in culture moved, albeit slowly, from one where you could disagree with someone and at the same time respect their different view; to one where “you are either with us and in the right” or “you are against us and in the wrong”. They managed to get right and wrong into subjective opinion and everybody has picked up on that and all parties now use that in their interactions. It has even got to the point that people scream at others just because they hold a different view.

I watched a recent clip on a 24hour news channel and a journalist asked a politician a perfectly reasonable question. The first reaction was the crowding supporters booed the journalist. The second reaction was the politician framing their reply to say “but if you don’t agree with me you are wrong”. The question was about whether we should know about deficits in the NHS; hardly a question deserving of boos or the politician’s “for or against” reply

As another example, I listened on the radio whilst driving, to a woman who was asked “How did you vote in the Brexit debate?”. She said she couldn’t answer because if she did she feared being abused. How low have we traveled as a country that merely holding a view (not racist or sexist) will cause people to abuse one another. I don’t care how she voted, I don’t even know how she voted. For me, the good part is she did vote. I’ve no idea why she voted as she did and I don’t care how people reach their decision. It is their decision and their right to vote as they wish. For debate to descend into a pit where disclosing how you voted opens you up to abuse and ridicule, says more about how far this invasion of “you are either with us and in the right” or “you are against us and in the wrong” has come than anything else

Of course this trampling of subjective opinion is exacerbated if it is an opinion about one of the sacred cows of British life. Let me give an example. The NHS. We are told that the NHS is the best service in the world and free at the point of delivery; so don’t dare change that otherwise you are akin to the devil. Sorry, all organisations need to move forward or they fall behind. Indeed the NHS is rarely top of any comparative work comparing health services around the world, or even in the top fifteen

I’ll give an example. Avoidable medical error is the third-biggest killer in hospitals, after cancer and heart disease. It happens because of the inability of professionals in the NHS to learn from their mistakes. The NHS will spin their errors for fear of being sued. They will effectively cover up their mistakes, even if they are genuine human errors. The NHS uses euphemisms to pull the wool over the eyes of grieving families. In the end it is the difficulty that talented, professional people have with admitting their fallibility: the threat to ego, to reputation, to vanity. I remember a Gerry Robinson TV program attempting to “fix” an NHS hospital and being told in one meeting by a surgeon “but I have three degrees; of course I’m right”.  You can’t challenge that, because only the NHS knows best. Well have a read of http://www.matthewsyed.co.uk/tag/virginia-mason-hospitals/ and see what can be done if you just concentrate on the right outcomes. Of course we can’t do it in the NHS because we are world class and don’t need any help. Yes we do.

How can any hospital dispensary give out the wrong medicine. It happens and it happens more than you realise. In the end it is a technical function easily carried out by a robotic process, but we insist on employing expensive staff to move tiny boxes from one place to another. I remember my Dad designing a form so he knew which drugs to give my Mum when she was dying from cancer. I remember his asking the hospital did they have anything to help him. Of course not, how dare he ask. Well he designed his own and I’ve seen variants of it throughout my life. Clearly other logical brains came to the same conclusions. His form uncovered a dosage error that would have gone unnoticed. Wouldn’t it be good if the NHS acknowledged it might not know all the answers and that good ideas are what they are; good ideas.

The NHS is purported to be free at the point of delivery. By and large it is. Of course it might cost you to park close to the hospital or you might have to pay for part of your prescription, so it’s not completely free; but in terms of attending Accident and Emergency or having a hip operation, it is free from cradle to grave. I agree it should be, however I think it can do better if it only concentrated on driving towards better outcomes, that not every problem is solved by throwing money at it, that it acknowledges it is full of good people who want to do better and maybe we should look at what services it does provide. This opinion is deemed to be of a type that fits the “you are against us and in the wrong” mainly from those on the left of UK politics. It’s just an opinion, but based a bit more on process and fact than those who do not want to hear