Trouble is, nothing on the list sounds “devastating”.

First stage in your campaign might be to moderate the language otherwise, in the absence of obvious “devastation”, you will end up looking silly.

[2] I disagree – apply these cut backs to the next Mid-Staffordshire and a bad situation can only be made very much worse.
http://witchdoctorlearning.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/investigation_into_mid_staffordshire_nhs_foundation_trust1.pdf

Mind you, to once again quote the irrepressible Andrew Lansley (on the NHS) “The £20 billion of savings that David Nicholson has identified is NOT A CUT in our budget – it’s not about doing less or worse – it’s a £20 billion efficiency saving; it’s about doing more for less”.

Apparently taking £20 billion OUT of the pot is not a cut – surely that is a ‘devastating’ abuse of logic?

@2

Apparently taking £20 billion OUT of the pot is not a cut – surely that is a ‘devastating’ abuse of logic?

No…. you’ve misunderstood. The savings will be ploughed back into a more useful and effective area of health spending.

It’s the equivalent of someone deciding to stop spending £5 per day on fags and spend the same amount on more healthy food instead. That wouldn’t constitute a ‘cut’ in the household budget, would it?

[3] “The savings will be PLOUGHED BACK into a more useful and effective area of health spending” – yet the man with the plan, Lansley, states (in his own words) “it’s about doing more for less”.

“More for less” – nothing about ploughing £20 billion back into the NHS.
Do you have a source for this reploughing hypothesis?

Even New Labour were preparing for cuts of about 40% in NHS management. What effect this will have I can only guess at. Of course New Labour were obsessed with targets and micr-management so there may have been a lot of unnecessary burocracy.

Will the budget for business consultants face similar cuts? Answers on the back of a postcard, please…

[5] I’m sure that’s right – but even the worse health secretary, ever, Patricia Hewitt, was not daft enough to say that a £20 billion reduction in spending was NOT a cut.

I suspect Alastair Campbell must be furious that another politico beat him to this new spin on how finances work?

http://www.apho.org.uk/ public health observatories = pointless
http://www.nta.nhs.uk/ National Treatment Agency = pointless
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/ National Health Info Centre = pointless
http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ Connecting 4 Health = pointless

Dunno, about £10 billion there. Easy peasy.

@ Dick the Prick #7

Either your nom de plume is spectacularly accurate, or you’re taking the piss.

Most likely, I suspect you simply don’t understand what any of the agencies you listed do. You do need more than just doctors and nurses to run a health service…

I’d be willing to stake my wages that the return on investment in APHO in particular is higher than the return on investment in doctors or medicines (because preventative health measures are nearly always far cheaper than treatment). Ditto NTA (treatment and stabilisation for drug addicts will have substantial returns both to the NHS and society as a whole).