I think saga is a fair word, here, considering the definition provided by one dictionary: ‘A story about what happens to a group of characters over a long period of time.’ One can’t help but wonder if the ‘characters’ of this particular episode are overshadowing the conclusion it is working towards. I recall Mike Farrar’s words last month, who argued that coalition tensions were hampering the practicalities of reform: ‘We are realistic about working in a politicised environment, but this is about as extreme as it gets’.But it’s not just political infighting that seems to be the problem here, but it is rather a struggle for myriad different characters, from all corners of the health and political worlds, to have their voices heard. Lansley, Meldrum, the Royal College of General Practitioners… the list goes on, and it seems that a veritable Babel of opinion is emerging that is proving… well, pretty confusing.
The NHS Future Forum is, of course, the latest voice in the mix. In response to its recommendations, the government has produced a document proposing significant changes to the health bill. Finally, some clarity? Yes, but actually the document reveals very little about what will be changed and what will stay the same. More babble.
To justify the ‘saga’ comparison further, nobody can deny that ‘a long period of time’ is even an understatement. If it ever does, will this all come to a heroic conclusion, with the protagonists riding into the sunset? The toppling of Babel seems a long way off.