Fans of the Hotelling/Downs Median Voter Model will be truly gratified by the latest two policy initiatives to be chucked in the general direction of the National Health Service. From the Conservatives (NB to non-UK readers: they are our right-wing capitalist party, which means that they are in favour of socialised medicine and abolishing university tuition fees).
” We will bring back matrons to take charge and deliver clean and infection-free wards”
And from the Labour Party (NB to non-UK readers: they are our left-wing socialist party, which means that they are in favour of privatisation of local government services and identity cards)
” Matrons will take the lead in setting standards for hospital cleanliness”
Three reasons why I find this particular piece of policy-by-Daily-Mail-editorial-page rubbish particularly disspiriting.
1. Some nurses are men; if I was one, then I think I would be pretty cross at the idea that a senior position was being created whose name came from the Latin for “mother”.
2. A “matron” in the NHS today is a ward sister with extra managerial responsibilities; ie a quite senior medical professional. If I was one, I think I would be quite cross that in the view of my political masters, my real role in life was to be a comedy battleaxe running a finger over the dusting.
3. This whole business is a response to a stream of tabloid hysteria about MRSA. MRSA is a bug which colonises the noses and skin of lots of human beings, and becomes a problem when transferred to burns or wounds patients through poor quarantine or lack of handwashing. It’s a problem completely unrelated to “dirty wards”, as anyone who ends up spending an hour or two reading the free leaflets in hospital waiting rooms can confirm. If you put every hospital in the UK into a big pot and boiled them, there would still be an MRSA problem as colonies of it are endemic in the population and it is spread by people, not wards. Apparently, the manifesto-writers for our two leading political parties either don’t know this, or do know it and have decided that what the Mail thinks (plus the opportunity to pander to the turn-back-the-clock tendency in British public life) is more important than the facts.
Like I say, democracy isn’t working.
Ironically, the situation in this case would probably be far better if there were just one party in charge of ensuring cleanliness at National Health hospitals.
I hear that Mr. Hussein is unemployed at the moment and has a lot of experience in this regard — or, at least, of getting rid of messes in creative ways . . .
1. Though a lot of nurses are men, the word ‘nurse’ itself has connotations rooted in the feminine, does it not? If women can adjust to finding themselves chairmen, surely a man can reconcile himself to being a matron. This was not, I think, the most powerful point you made here. (I believe, BTW, that the American equivalent of matron would be ‘charge nurse’; suitably gender-neutral, but altogether too martial and/or electrical for my taste.)
2. The notion of a senior professional like a matron having responsibility for ward hygiene isn’t really so offensive if understood as a sort of shorthand. The officer in charge of a transport unit may fairly be said to be responsible for seeing that the trucks etc. run properly, but this does not mean we expect him to spend his time tuning the motors. Hospital hygiene is in fact an extremely serious matter (and, see point 3, comprises much more than mere ‘cleanliness’) — I would be worried if senior professionals of both the nursing and the physician staff were not expected to keep a close eye on it.
3. Here’s your really good point, though. Clean floors etc. are certainly an important part of hospital hygiene, but by no means the only important part and in some cases, as the one you mention, very far from the most important part. Nosocomial infection is a real problem. A clean ward is a good start in preventing it, but there needs to be so much more (and primary responsibility for a lot of it, esp. proper antibiotic discipline, cannot be offloaded onto even very senior nursing staff). To suggest that all will be made right with a bit of Lysol and a mop is, as you say, either ignorant or irresponsible.
Whether the ignorance and/or irresponsibility of the two major UK parties means that democracy isn’t working, I cannot say. Looks to me like it’s working pretty much the way it has always worked.
This whole business is a response to a stream of tabloid hysteria about MRSA.
Nosocomial infections caused by resistant organisms are an increasing problem. Fomites play a definite role in transmission; VRE is one example. Although MRSA may be an exception to this mode of transmission (except in the ICU), it’s by no means the commonest hospital-acquired agent.
Just because the tabloids associate promotion of cleanliness standards with MRSA doesn’t mean that that’s the real reason for it.
There should be a measure of domestic-ness of fame.
Thus, John Wayne, recognised equally in the US and (for example) the UK, would rate a 1.000.
While Katie Couric and Julian Clary, known well, but only in their own countries, would be down around the 0.003s.
(Inspired by the ‘Oooh matron’ gag - how many Yanks have heard of Kenneth Williams, I wonder?)
Just to clarify; I am entirely in favour of clean hospitals and would even surmise that there is a genuine problem somewhere at the bottom of the stack of bollocks that has been talked about it. But when people say “Bring Back Matron!”, it is visible to me that they are not being serious about health policy; they’re trying to tap into the popular imagery which I summarised so well with the hyperlinks above.
If only you lot didn’t hate Foucault so much we could have a sensible discussion about this :-)
It isn’t likely that the Daily Mail will start running scare stories about members of the public demanding inappropriate anti-biotics on every excuse, and consequently contributing to the evolution of resistance, as well as indirectly raising the cost of drugs by increasing research requirements.
That would be anti-democratic, wouldn’t it? Freedom of choice and that would be jeopardised. So what is to be done?
Like I say, democracy isn’t working.
Well, no shit, Sherlock. Have you heard the Bushies got re-elected in the US?
I can’t remember the last time I read of a new policy initiative announced by either the Tories or (‘New’) Labour when they weren’t playing to the Daily Mail in their continual race for the bottom.
I suspect the primary reason for cleanliness problems, to the extent that there are some, is that they are caused by privatisation of cleaning services. I say this as I used to be a hospital cleaner for a short time. The hospital had recently put their cleaning services up for tender.
What this means, generally, is that companies all produce incredible fantasy-land projections of what will be cleaned and how often. They all compete to offer the most comprehensive service at the lowest price.
“We will hand bleach every square inch of tile thrice daily. Toilets will be cleaned every hour on the hour and floors mopped every 12.5 minutes between the hours of midnight and 4am, etc.”
This whole process takes place totally divorced from any understanding of whether this level of cleaning is possible on the projected budget.
Then all of the existing hospital-employed cleaning staff get fired and 50 or 60% get rehired by the new private contractor on the same or lower wages and asked to do the same job they were doing before only with less people and even less realistic targets.
Corner cutting is endemic in that kind of environment.
I’ve been through the same process in a number of other ‘tendering’ processes and it seems the same in every case.
I suppose you can’t sue a UK hospital if you pick up some disease in the waiting room. But I would hazard a guess that a class action would soon be in the making if US hospitals were providing these life threatening infections.
I can’t remember the last time I read of a new policy initiative announced by either the Tories or (‘New’) Labour when they weren’t playing to the Daily Mail in their continual race for the bottom.
I suspect the primary reason for cleanliness problems, to the extent that there are some, is that they are caused by privatisation of cleaning services. I say this as I used to be a hospital cleaner for a short time. The hospital had recently put their cleaning services up for tender.
What this means, generally, is that companies all produce incredible fantasy-land projections of what will be cleaned and how often. They all compete to offer the most comprehensive service at the lowest price.
“We will hand bleach every square inch of tile thrice daily. Toilets will be cleaned every hour on the hour and floors mopped every 12.5 minutes between the hours of midnight and 4am, etc.”
This whole process takes place totally divorced from any understanding of whether this level of cleaning is possible on the projected budget.
Then all of the existing hospital-employed cleaning staff get fired and 50 or 60% get rehired by the new private contractor on the same or lower wages and asked to do the same job they were doing before only with less people and even less realistic targets.
Corner cutting is endemic in that kind of environment.
I’ve been through the same process in a number of other ‘tendering’ processes and it seems the same in every case.
Sorry for the double post. I even reloaded the page and checked before reposting.
Jet,
I worked in a hospital for a number of years and my mother is a “charge nurse” at one. Rest assured that a very significant number (don’t recall the exact percentage, but over 30, I believe) of people who come to the hospital get ill w/ some other infection they catch while there. There are many reasons to sue hospitals, but this isn’t one, since little can be done over it. Sometimes the infections are quite bad, even life-threatening. But, the big problem is 1) weakend immune systems, 2) all the damned sick people around. There’s no negligence involved, so no suits. Despite what’s often thought, one still does need negligence to have any chance at a malpractice suit.
Jet - nope. Nosocomial infections aren’t rare in the US either. MRSA seems common enough in the US from what I can tell, although I can’t find any comparitive statistics. Furthermore, check out clause 22 of the Missouri Nosocomial Infection Control
Act of 2004. Seems to me that undermines any effort at a class action in Missouri. I suspect that lawsuits aren’t rare, but that class actions are probably impossible.
I suppose you can’t sue a UK hospital if you pick up some disease in the waiting room. But I would hazard a guess that a class action would soon be in the making if US hospitals were providing these life threatening infections.
I don’t think you would be able to sue any hospital over a disease picked up in the waiting room other than in quite strange circumstances. If you can prove that a UK hospital gave you a serious illness or injury through negligence, though, you can sue ‘em for sure, and the cost of these lawsuits has been steadily rising over the last few years.
As Scott points out above, the same is true of the USA; it’s one of the forms of “malpractice” torts that apparently need to be reformed. I doubt it would be a class action suit though, because I don’t see how you’d successfully get all the individual cases of MRSA certified as a class.
“I believe, BTW, that the American equivalent of matron would be ‘charge nurse’; suitably gender-neutral, but altogether too martial and/or electrical for my taste.”
I believe that ‘charge nurse’ is the male form of ‘sister’ in the UK. I have a vague feeling that a male ‘matron’ is called a ‘senior nurse’, but I could be wrong.
Matt – you say –
“I can’t remember the last time I read of a new policy initiative announced by either the Tories or (‘New’) Labour when they weren’t playing to the Daily Mail in their continual race for the bottom.”
I’m asking for trouble, I know, but here goes.
Might the following two things be true:
1. If the government doesn’t make a sufficient splash with a particular policy initiative, that presents the opposition with the chance to announce the very same policy (or, more likely, a coarsened or half-baked version of it) a few days later: the media will let them get away with doing so, and will give airtime to their claim to be ‘the only party taking X seriously’; the public (not just the Mail-reading public) will probably react by thinking – why should we believe the opposition, they’re politicians too, they’re all as bad as each other – but still will come away with their pre-existing view reinforced, that hospitals/schools/the country are going to the dogs and ‘nothing is being done’.
2. The way to make a sufficient splash with a policy initiative is to tap into popular imagery – like matrons.
Might it be true that some of those working in government don’t like (2) any more than you do - but that their distaste for it is overcome by their frustration at witnessing too many instances of (1)? Do you genuinely believe that if the Government ‘rose above’ this depressing little game, that would actually result in a better quality of debate? I don’t – not on issues like ‘superbugs’ or immigration, not in the short to medium term, at any rate.
Aren’t class actions on the Bush hit list anyway?
Surely the matron business is just a catchy way of saying that they are going to make cleaners accountable to medical staff. In other words what mc said. On the other hand I also think that it is easy to lose track of the difference between effective pragmatism and craven submission.
Anytime I run into a British pop-cultural reference with which I’m unfamiliar, there’s a 75% chance that it will prove to be somehow related to the “Carry On” films.
Daniel,
I know you are not really on the subject of infectious disease, but rather the absurdity of “policy by Daily Mail” (which as an American I can only assume is roughly the equivalent of our gay marriage amendment debate; driven by weird prejudices and hysteria of the “won’t somebody think of the children” variety). Nevertheless, hospital-acquired (nosocomial, as someone said above) infections are a real issue, and MRSA (methicillin or multi-resistant Staph aureus) are a major concern, as are VRE (vancomycin resistant enterococci), along with several other species. In nutshell, these are bacteria that are very common on or in people, that can cause very serious disease when introduced to patients (1) with lowered immunity and/or (2) with an open wound or surgical incision. Catheterization is a particular concern. The danger is that once they get in and established, they are tremendously difficult to remove, because they are resistant to most or ALL antibiotics (that last one is the real fear). Yes, there is obviously some tabloid hysteria, but there is also some real justified fear among physicians, i.d. specialists, and epidemiologists. Hygiene is in fact probably the best approach to dealing with it, because of the lag in production of new drugs.
Yeh, but my point was that these bacteria aren’t in general spread by contact with dirty hospital walls or floors. The precautions against MRSA have to do with hand-washing and using alcohol rub. (It’s also possible for the patient himself to be the source of the infection as it is perfectly possible to carry an MRSA colony around on your skin without being aware of it until you become a burns patient). In general, hospital cleaners aren’t responsible for washing the staff and visitors’ hands, and senior nurses are already responsible for making sure that their staff follow procedures.
The failure to make a distinction between “this is a serious problem” and “this, however, is not actually a solution to it” is the hallmark of Daily Mail policymaking. (I’d also note that there is a big, big Freudian issue here with respect to people wanting to tackle the grimy corners that they can see and ignoring the actual contaminant that they’re possibly carrying on them).
Well, as a male and as someone who has worked as a nurse with people with such conditions as leukemia I certainly don’t take offence with the idea of making senior nurses more responsible for infectious control techniques (as long as there is appropriate recogntion and renumeration. Which is what the quotes are shorthand for.
The term “matron” is certainly archaic but I think that most men who work in nursing aren’t that thin skinned to take much offense.
Actually, I think it is Daniel who has a rather old fashioned view of nursing if the first thing that springs to his mind are Carry On movies.
I hear what you’re saying, Neil, but I think that in turn, you’er operating on a rather old fashioned view of politics. Look at the words they used; they’re not just “shorthand”, they’re chosen carefully.
First up, “Matron”. This is not a neutral term for a senior nurse; it’s overloaded with cultural references, which is why I used the hyperlinks above.
Second, “Bring Back Matron”. This is saying precisely that there used to be these people called Matrons, we got rid of them (for some reason?) and now we need to bring them back. This isn’t a neutral shorthand for a policy; it’s grounding that policy in a framework of saying that a previous era, when nursing was carried out by matronly matrons, was better, and that people who have attempted to modernise the nursing profession were wrong.
Moving on …
“to deliver clean and infection-free wards” (alternatively “hospital cleanliness”).
Two points here:
first, “clean” does not mean the same as “infection-free”. The two usually go together, and it’s difficult to keep something infection-free without also keeping it clean over the long term, but they’re not synonyms, and it’s very easy to have something that’s clean but not infection-free. This is the Freudian point I was alluding to earlier. The obsession is with dirt, rather than with what is actually dangerous. I have actually seen an article in the Mail whereby someone (I think, actually a former Matron!) suggested that hospital cleaners should not be using disinfectant, because it made them less concerned with their real job of removing visible dirt!
And second, note that what is to be delivered is clean wards (or clean “hospitals”). This is what really gave it away to me that this is not neutral shorthand.
As I say, MRSA is carried for the most part by people, not walls. The infection control procedure which would do most to control its spread would be to insist that hospital visitors adhered to the same hand-washing procedures as staff. But the politicians have, presumably correctly, decided that there are fewer votes in telling the population “invisible superbugs are living on your skin and you need to be reminded to wash”. It’s much easier to claim that the problem is “dirty wards”.
anyway, my name’s Jacques Derrida goodnight. try the shrimp folks it’s really great, I’ll be here all week.
This sort of thing matters, because as you know, the NHS is measured by targets these days, and those targets are set by civil servants who are not always 100% aware of the clinical issues, but who are more or less always 100% aware of the political priorities being assigned to things. If we get policy made on the basis of these manifestoes, then there is a real danger that we’ll get an NHS which delivers well-mopped floors and scrubbed walls, but which doesn’t have any coherent policy for addressing the real dangers of infection.
OK dsquared, I doubt you or anyone else is still on this thread, but just in case: yesterday I didn’t have time to check all the news coverage of this stuff, so I granted your implied accusation (echoed by some commenters) that both parties were equally to blame for dragging in crude/sinister imagery (matron) and rank irrationalism (linking MRSA to dirt) of this story. I therefore confined myself to defending the government (of which, it will already be pretty clear, I am a supporter, though not I hope a blinkered one) for sometimes deciding to engage with the debate at the level or on the terms where it finds it, rather than ‘rising above it’.
However, a bit of checking up today doesn’t seem to bear out the implication that both parties are equally responsible, or even partially responsible, for this particular bout of ‘daily mail’ politics. A few examples:
1. The Conservatives’ website’s top story today, under the heading ‘Matrons to lead battle against hospital superbugs’, runs as follows: “Michael Howard has unveiled dynamic plans to restore hospital matrons - armed with new powers to crackdown on the deadly MRSA “superbug” scandal. Launching his party’s health manifesto, the Opposition Leader condemned Labour’s failure to eliminate MRSA – “a scandal unique in Europe” - and promised that under a Conservative administration matrons would be able to overrule NHS bureaucrats and shutdown dirty wards and operating theatres.”
(And in a fine piece of impartial, sceptical reporting, the Sun’s chief political correspondent Trevor Kavanagh started his big piece on this as follows:
“TONY Blair was last night accused of “sitting idly by” while thousands die from hospital superbugs. Tory leader Michael Howard lashed the PM for presiding over 40,000 unnecessary deaths from MRSA. And he attacked ministers for promising only to halve the 5,000-a-year death toll by 2009. Mr Howard whose mother-in-law died from MRSA, vowed to put powerful new matrons back on the wards to enforce strict hygiene standards.”)
By contrast the Labour website has only one mention of the word ‘matron’, and it is nothing to do with clean wards or MRSA (it is about more senior community nurses). In fact there is only one mention of ‘MRSA’ on the Labour website; this refers to alcohol rubs (cf most of the informed comment on the thread above, including yours) and does not refer to dirty wards.
2. Googling on “mrsa dirty ward” etc, pretty much all the links are to Conservative quotes. All I could find googling on “john reid mrsa dirty” was this kind of thing from july 04:
“Two days before the NAO report was released, health secretary John Reid announced that trusts will be given targets to reduce MRSA, and that every hospital should publish and display its infection rates. ‘I want NHS patients to demand the highest standards of hygiene and – since human contact is a major way
that infection spreads in hospital – to feel happy to ask staff if they have washed their
hands,’ said Mr Reid. He said matrons should to be put in charge
of cleaners, alcohol rubs would be provided at every staff-patient contact point and advice
sought from overseas infection control experts.”
From all this it seems to me that, on this particular issue at least, it is the Conservatives who are mainly or even entirely responsible for dragging in the crude/sinister imagery and the rank irrationalism. This isn’t always the case, of course – but here it seems to be. Tell me if I’m wrong (I confess to not having closely followed the story on the day). If I’m not, then I think you should have been more careful in your accusations. If you want to have a general go at the political class, save it for an issue where the government is equally/partially responsible.
OK dsquared, I doubt you or anyone else is still on this thread, but just in case: yesterday I didn’t have time to check all the news coverage of this stuff, so I granted your implied accusation (echoed by some commenters) that both parties were equally to blame for dragging in crude/sinister imagery (matron) and rank irrationalism (linking MRSA to dirt) of this story. I therefore confined myself to defending the government (of which, it will already be pretty clear, I am a supporter, though not I hope a blinkered one) for sometimes deciding to engage with the debate at the level or on the terms where it finds it, rather than ‘rising above it’.
However, a bit of checking up today doesn’t seem to bear out the implication that both parties are equally responsible, or even partially responsible, for this particular bout of ‘daily mail’ politics. A few examples:
1. The Conservatives’ website’s top story today, under the heading ‘Matrons to lead battle against hospital superbugs’, runs as follows: “Michael Howard has unveiled dynamic plans to restore hospital matrons - armed with new powers to crackdown on the deadly MRSA “superbug” scandal. Launching his party’s health manifesto, the Opposition Leader condemned Labour’s failure to eliminate MRSA – “a scandal unique in Europe” - and promised that under a Conservative administration matrons would be able to overrule NHS bureaucrats and shutdown dirty wards and operating theatres.”
(And in a fine piece of impartial, sceptical reporting, the Sun’s chief political correspondent Trevor Kavanagh started his big piece on this as follows:
“TONY Blair was last night accused of “sitting idly by” while thousands die from hospital superbugs. Tory leader Michael Howard lashed the PM for presiding over 40,000 unnecessary deaths from MRSA. And he attacked ministers for promising only to halve the 5,000-a-year death toll by 2009. Mr Howard whose mother-in-law died from MRSA, vowed to put powerful new matrons back on the wards to enforce strict hygiene standards.”)
By contrast the Labour website has only one mention of the word ‘matron’, and it is nothing to do with clean wards or MRSA (it is about more senior community nurses). In fact there is only one mention of ‘MRSA’ on the Labour website; this refers to alcohol rubs (cf most of the informed comment on the thread above, including yours) and does not refer to dirty wards.
2. Googling on “mrsa dirty ward” etc, pretty much all the links are to Conservative quotes. All I could find googling on “john reid mrsa dirty” was this kind of thing from july 04:
“Two days before the NAO report was released,
health secretary John Reid announced that
trusts will be given targets to reduce MRSA,
and that every hospital should publish and
display its infection rates. ‘I want NHS patients
to demand the highest standards of hygiene
and – since human contact is a major way
that infection spreads in hospital – to feel
happy to ask staff if they have washed their
hands,’ said Mr Reid. He said matrons should to be put in charge
of cleaners, alcohol rubs would be provided
at every staff-patient contact point and advice
sought from overseas infection control experts.”
From all this it seems to me that, on this particular issue at least, it is the Conservatives who are mainly or even entirely responsible for dragging in the crude/sinister imagery and the rank irrationalism. This isn’t always the case, of course – but here it seems to be. Tell me if I’m wrong (I confess to not having closely followed the story on the day). If I’m not, then I think you should have been more careful in your accusations. If you want to have a general go at the political class, it would have more force if you saved it for an issue where the government is equally/partially responsible.
MC:
While you may be right that the Tories are pushing this issue more than Labour (for reasons of transparent political gain) it’s not the case the Labour are uninvolved here.
In fact, as far as I can tell, the use of ‘matron’ in framing this debate stems primarily from:
“A matron’s charter: An action plan for cleaner hospitals”
Which was an NHS policy document of October of last year and which can be found here.
This document was produced by NHS Estates which is an agency of the Department of Health which in turn is under the charge of John Reid.
This document in turn was the result of a workshopping process which was a response to:
“Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection: A summary of action”
Which can be found here and which made the initial call for a Matron’s Charter and this document — which explicitly speaks of a Matron’s Charter — has a foreword from John Reid and is the product of the Department of Health in Whitehall.
It’s not the case that the ‘Matron’ terminology is a product of Tory party spin, however much they may now be playing on it, and it’s just not true that the choice of terminology has nothing to do with the Labour government. The whole ‘Matron’s Charter’ terminology comes directly from Whitehall.
OK, fair point, on matrons. I which case, I retreat (in lawyerly fashion) to my second line of defence on that (see my earlier post, above).
As for the other charge - pretty clear, if implicit, in most of the posts above - i.e., that politicians are either ignorant about MRSA being more to do with dirty hands than dirty wards, or deliberately suppressing that fact - do you accept that this charge is much less fair when directed at Labour than at the Conservatives?
I read through both the policy documents earlier - although in the sense of skimming over them.
It seems clear that the ‘Matron’-driven policy on ward cleanliness is only one part of a wider set of strategies to combat MRSA and similar infections. So that extent, it’s unfair to claim that the Labour administration is totally ignorant of the correct way to deal with MRSA.
However, my own personal problem with the whole thing is precisely the silly adoption of the ‘Matron’ label with all its olde-worlde connotations. I’m tired of the constant pandering to the Mail-reading classes — even when relatively sensible policies are announced — and the willingness to countenance quite horrendous language, on asylum-seekers and migrants, for example, in their pursuit of the votes and approval of people who we ought to be denouncing as scum and moral imbeciles.
The fact that the Tories are worse, and they are, is cold comfort.
What bugs me is there’d be no damn reason for all this useless privatization if the British people could just learn to live with really crappy perpetually declining health care and teeth like an Egyptian mummy.
It’s a delight to at least look forward to Sharia law finally settling on Britain and a prudent Islamic hand gently guiding this troubled medical system back to the good old days of leeches and prompt amputations. No more namby pamby complaining about health costs - it’s just as easy for the doctor, who’s also a Koran scholar, to take that head off as well as the leg in the one hour clinic. So don’t tell me about your way overpriced vasectomy pal, that axe cuts both ways when it’s getting wielded by Abdul The Unlicensed Dentist.
The two main parties talk about bringing back matrons (which I thought Labour did two years ago) to combat MRSA because they both oppose the one thing that actually could combat MRSA: Bringing cleaning back in-house. This problem exists because cleaning services in hospitals have been privatised. Cleaning is done by private companies under contract. These companies are there to make a profit and they do that by cutting corners. They are fly-by-night companies so have nothing to lose if their contracts are renewed. But the two main parties are uncomprisingly dogmatic in their adherence to Thatcherism. It’s the same with the railways: Since privatisation, government spending has increased five-fold whilst levels of service have collapsed. But both parties absolutely scoff at the idea of doing the common-sense thing, the one thing that would both cut costs and improve service: re-nationalise. Our political class, and the country as a whole, has a choice to make: Continue with the folly or privatisation and learn to live with third-rate services, or go back to doing things in the public sector, where, as has been amply demonstrated over the past fifteen years, costs are lower and quality is higher.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review