Last month, Patricia Hewitt said it was "completely untrue" that the NHS is using maternity support workers to do midwives' jobs. And it looks like Patsy was wrong, corroborating the allegation that she's the English Comical Ali, living in a world of her own.
But I don't think we should be too hard upon her. All of us have a tendency to see what we want, for (at least) three reasons:
1. Wishful thinking. It's natural to look on the bright side. There's always a frisson of excitement at a football ground when the quick winger gets the ball in space, even though history tells us he'll end up on his arse with the ball in row Z. 
2. Ego-involvement. The moment we say something, it becomes our opinion and we look for corroboration of it. Economists who have forecast economic recovery often see more evidence later of recovery than do economists who have forecast recession.
3. Framing. We tend to see what we expect. I suspect quite a few of you misread the words in this triangle, suggesting a failure to see even basic English. And if our expectations are formed in part by ideology, and not just experience, the difficulties will be even greater.
All these problems afflict us in everyday life. But they are magnified in a hierarchy, as subordinates have countless reasons to withhold information from bosses: they don't want to rock the boat, trouble him with unimportant detail, look like failures themselves. The upshot is that bosses end up living in imaginary worlds, believing their own Powerpoint presentations.
So, what's the solution?
Replacing hierarchy with markets is only part of the solution. Even in financial markets, where competition is intense, "noise traders" don't get eliminated quickly - if at all (pdf) - by their smarter rivals.
For me, then, Hewitt is not to be criticized for being stupid; we all fall short of perfect rationality (whatever that is). Instead, she is to be criticized for pretending that she's not.
What's with the triangle? It looks to me like it says "Once in a lifetime." Nothing tricky about that.
Posted by: Marcin Tustin | May 29, 2007 at 02:21 PM
"Once in a a lifetime"
BTW, in hindsight, Patsy's claim that 2006 was "The NHS' best year ever" is starting to look more and more true, given that it's been going steadily downhill since then.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 29, 2007 at 02:25 PM
The problem is that over the years, Comical Hewitt has passed the point where we can easily believe that she merely "didn't know" about Problem X. Rather, the feeling is (as with much of the New Labour clique) that she is regularly lying about things.
It may be true that sometimes she is simply a victim of her own ignorance, but it looks very much like in other cases (see the statements around the announced NHS over/underspend) she subscribes the Straussian concept that "The Project" must go forward and if the ignorant public need lying to so they don't rebel, then that is what she will do.
Posted by: Meh | May 29, 2007 at 02:50 PM
It's hard, with New Labour, to tell whether they're a pack of liars or clinically insane. The two categories are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: dearieme | May 29, 2007 at 06:20 PM
Dearieme, it's worse - they have read "1984" and learned the lessons (as did Saddam H - moustache, posters at every street corner, constant warfare).
Yes of course Nulab are pathological liars, whether clinging on to power for its own sake is a sign of clinical insanity is a moot point.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 29, 2007 at 11:36 PM
[Dearieme, it's worse - they have read "1984" and learned the lessons (as did Saddam H - moustache, posters at every street corner, constant warfare). ]
Do you not feel even a little bit silly when you say something like that?
Posted by: dsquared | May 30, 2007 at 08:18 AM
I had to read the triangle three times before spotting the additional "a".
Amazing.
Good article in the Times today, by the way.
Posted by: ChrisC | May 30, 2007 at 09:07 AM
Dsquared, re-read the first half of 1984 and think about it.
Posted by: Mark Wadsworth | May 30, 2007 at 10:05 AM
One thing's for sure, you paranoid right-wingers don't believe that 'Hope lies with the Proles'.
Posted by: Igor Belanov | May 30, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Oi, Dillowbert: congrats on your piece in the Times.
Posted by: dearieme | May 30, 2007 at 02:15 PM
In organisations of any size there tend to be two separate organisations; the CEO's organisations of initiatives, strategies, policies etc, and the COO's organisation that delivers the goods on a day-to-day basis.
How these two get on is critical for the future health of any organisation. Frequently the COO's part has seen fads come and go and just ignores the CEO's world. Or the CEO's world takes for granted the skills and abilities of the COO's world and eventually destroys the bit that does the daily business by not listening to it.
Posted by: Dipper | May 30, 2007 at 07:51 PM
"she's the English Comical Ali, living in a world of her own"
I do think it time that we had a name all her own for our temporary health secretary.
How about "Pratfall Patsy" ?
Alan Douglas
Posted by: Alan Douglas | May 30, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Nice article in The Times - do you think that increased devolution and decentralisation is a potential answer to the probs of hierarchy/managerialism?
I agree with what you say - and its easily found when ministers make announcements over policy or delivery minutae - when I am thinking - surely that's best left to doctors or teachers to decide etc - they are the ones with the professional knowledge, experience, and judgement to decide.
Posted by: Glenn Athey | May 31, 2007 at 09:36 AM