The NHS chief publicly begs for his job arguing that he didn't make any mistakes but has learnt from his mistakes. Then, because he made a promise to lead the NHS reforms two years ago he justifies that he should be allowed to stay, whether or not he was paid to be personally accountable for needless deaths and misery. It is also clear that there has been no succession planning - quite simply, he implies, with the Prime Minister's endorsement, there is no one else in the whole world would could oversee the NHS reforms.
As if we were in any doubt about Nicholson's view of the world, the efficiency element of the reforms is named the Nicholson Challenge. Not that I would want to cast doubt on the effectiveness of the man's leadership, but it appears even the delivery of Nicholson Challenge is challenged.
So just as we learn that there is an indispensable man leading the NHS reforms, and recognising that the efficiency strand delivery is questionable, and with less than four weeks to go before the new commissioning regime kicks in, we also learn that the commissioning rules need to be rewritten. After all this time discussing the commissioning reforms is it really conceivable that a sprint rewrite will be a good job.
We have one person at the top of the pile with a history of losing focus (his own admission) and new commissioners who now discover the rules are being rewritten.
So all the ducks seem lined up for an almighty mess. Change management case study ready and waiting - pity we all look set to suffer. I wonder is anyone identified as personally accountable?