NHS horror stories, my life as a Twitter fogey, and cricket’s robot generation

Peter Wilby's "First Thoughts" column.

Horror stories about the National Health Service come thick and fast, conveniently for a government that wants to hand it over to private capital. One week, it is chaos in A&E; the next, substandard care at 14 hospital trusts and old folk being ushered to an early grave by the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). We should treat these stories with scepticism even when they are apparently validated by official inquiries.

With all the talk of “excess deaths”, you would think that our hospitals had become killers. Yet, as the NHS medical director for England, Bruce Keogh, observes in his report on the 14 “failing” trusts, overall mortality in hospitals has fallen by about 30 per cent over the past decade.

Inquiries, however, rarely conclude that the problems they were set up to address don’t exist and they would be dismissed as whitewashes if they did. Given the emotion and fears surrounding serious illness and particularly death, it’s easy to find allegations of medical neglect. Julia Neuberger’s report on the LCP is replete with phrases such as “some people”, “many people” and “all too often”. There are no references to randomised sample surveys. The inquiry invited submissions from the public (it received 483), talked to 113 people at meetings and looked at hospital complaints. Such evidence should not be ignored but it is naturally biased towards those who suffered bad experiences.

No institution is perfect and anything involving medicine, which is as much an art as a science, will be more imperfect than most. What we don’t know is whether a health service run by private providers would be better.

I offer this snippet: in 2010, the US health department’s inspector general reported that 13.5 per cent of Medicare hospital patients suffered “harm” from “adverse events”, nearly half of them because of care failures. British newspapers love to highlight cases of “wrong-site surgeries”, in which ovaries are taken out instead of the appendix, for example. The United States has 40 of those a week; the UK has about 60 a year. The NHS has failings but they seem relatively few and, by international standards, very cheap.

Guilt by association

What’s in a name? The Neuberger report acknowledges that “many relatives” of patients on the LCP felt their loved ones had had “good deaths”. Yet it recommends dropping the term. “Pathway”, it argues, suggests patients being speeded directly to their coffins. I wonder if “Liverpool” isn’t the greater problem. Thanks partly to the Sun and Boris Johnson, the city has acquired negative associations in the past 25 years. Mention Liverpool and people think of poverty, unemployment, riots, too much drink and a declining football team.

Seen but not heard

The BBC’s director general, Tony Hall, says that he intends to stop actors muttering in the corporation’s dramas. If so, he will be performing a service to theatregoers as well as TV viewers. Actors, it seems, are no longer being taught to articulate their lines clearly and “throw” their voices, largely because the big money is now in TV, where authenticity is thought more important than audibility. Being deaf, I nearly always buy front-row seats at the theatre, but in the West End recently, we sat in the grand circle and my wife, whose hearing is perfect, complained that she couldn’t hear, either. Theatregoers should start a campaign and, at an agreed signal, stand in unison and shout: “Speak up!”

Social outcast

We hear much about how social media companies hold extensive databases on us that could be exploited by governments and corporations. We also hear about their inadequate controls over insulting comments. But I have not noticed discussion of their arbitrary power over users. I returned from holiday to find my Twitter account “suspended”, without warning or explanation. After a polite, emailed inquiry, I was told to look at the rules. I replied I couldn’t see how I had broken them. Two weeks later, someone at Twitter emailed me, saying, “It’s been awhile since we’ve heard from you,” and that “hopefully” the matter had been resolved. It certainly hadn’t, I replied. The account was restored a few days later, still without explanation or apology.

Being an old fogey, I use Twitter spasmodically and was not greatly inconvenienced by its loss. To some users, however, it has become an essential working tool. In a telling example of how technology can restrict rather than widen choice, many feel they must use it because their professional peers do so. We should know more about the Californian geeks who run social media and what redress they offer to those arbitrarily blackballed.

Analyse this

How could Ashton Agar, a 19-year-old cricketer playing his first Test and batting at No 11, make 98, the highest score of Australia’s first innings against England at Trent Bridge? The answer is that, since Agar had played only 16 unremarkable first-class innings, the England coaches, lacking videos of him, could offer bowlers no plans for getting him out. International sides now analyse opponents exhaustively. They produce pie charts, spreadsheets, graphs and other statistical paraphernalia, searching for a batsman’s weakness as assiduously as physicists searched for the Higgs boson. Even the best modern bowlers are robots, programmed by back-room boffins. Without the usual input, they malfunction.

What redress does Twitter offer to the arbitrarily blackballed? Photograph: Getty Images

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 22 July 2013 issue of the New Statesman, How to make a saint

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

As long as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour opponents are divided, he will rule

The leader's foes have yet to agree on when and how a challenge should take place.

Labour MPs began plotting to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader before he even held the position. They have not stopped since. From the outset, most regarded him as electorally and morally defective. Nothing has caused them to relinquish this view.

A week before the first major elections of this parliament, Labour found itself conducting a debate normally confined to far-right internet forums: was Hitler a Zionist? For some MPs, the distress lay in how unsurprised they were by all this. Since Corbyn’s election last September, the party has become a mainstream venue for hitherto fringe discussions.

Many MPs believe that Labour will be incapable of rebuilding its standing among the Jewish community as long as Corbyn remains leader. In the 1930s, Jewish support for the party was as high as 80 per cent. “They handed you your . . . membership just after your circumcision,” quipped the father in the 1976 television play Bar Mitzvah Boy. By the time of the last general election, a poll found that support had fallen to a mere 22 per cent. It now stands at just 8.5 per cent.

Corbyn’s critics cite his typical rejection of anti-Semitism and "all forms of racism" (as if unable to condemn the former in isolation), his defence of a tweet sent by his brother, Piers (“Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine”), and his description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends”. The Lab­our leader dismissed the latter remark as a diplomatic nicety but such courtesy was not displayed when he addressed Labour Friends of Israel and failed to mention the country’s name. When challenged on his record of combating anti-Semitism, Corbyn frequently invokes his parents’ presence at the Battle of Cable Street, a reference that does not provide the reassurance intended. The Jewish community does not doubt that Labour has stood with it in the past. It questions whether it is prepared to stand with it in the present.

MPs say that Labour’s inept response to anti-Semitism has strengthened the moral case for challenging Corbyn. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of how the fear of “enormous reputational damage” had pushed him to the brink of resignation. As the New Statesman went to press, Corbyn’s first electoral test was looming. Every forecast showed the party on course to become the first opposition to lose council seats in a non-general-election year since 1985. Yet Corbyn appeared to insist on 3 May that this would not happen, gifting his opponents a benchmark by which to judge him.

Sadiq Khan was projected to become the party’s first successful London mayoral candidate since 2004. But having distanced himself from Corbyn throughout the race, he intends to deny him any credit if he wins. Regardless of the results on 5 May, there will be no challenge to the Labour leader before the EU referendum on 23 June. Many of the party’s most Corbyn-phobic MPs are also among its most Europhile. No cause, they stress, should distract from the defence of the UK’s 43-year EU membership.

Whether Corbyn should be challenged in the four weeks between the referendum and the summer recess is a matter of dispute among even his most committed opponents. Some contend that MPs have nothing to lose from trying and should be prepared to “grind him down” through multiple attempts, if necessary. Others fear that he would be empowered by winning a larger mandate than he did last September and argue that he must be given “longer to fail”. Still more hope that Corbyn will instigate a midterm handover to the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, his closest ally, whom they regard as a beatable opponent.

Those who are familiar with members’ thinking describe many as “anxious” and in need of “reassurance” but determined that Corbyn receives adequate time to “set out his stall”. One shadow cabinet minister spoke of being “caught between Scylla and Charybdis” – that is, “a Labour Party membership which is ardently Corbynista and a British electorate which is ardently anti-Corbynista”. In their most pessimistic moments, some MPs gloomily wonder which group will deselect them first. The possibility that a new Conservative leader could trigger an early general election is cited by some as cause for haste and by others as the only means by which Corbynism can be definitively discredited.

The enduring debate over whether the Labour leader would automatically make the ballot if challenged (the party’s rules are ambiguous) is dismissed by most as irrelevant. Shadow cabinet members believe that Corbyn would achieve the requisite nominations. Momentum, the Labour leader’s praetorian guard, has privately instructed its members to be prepared to lobby MPs for this purpose.

There is no agreement on who should face Corbyn if his removal is attempted. The veteran MP Margaret Hodge has been touted as a “stalking horse” to lead the charge before making way for a figure such as the former paratrooper Dan Jarvis or the shadow business secretary, Angela Eagle. But in the view of a large number of shadow cabinet members, no challenge will materialise. They cite the high bar for putative leaders – the endorsement of 20 per cent of Labour MPs and MEPs – and the likelihood of failure. Many have long regarded mass front-bench resignations and trade union support as ­essential preconditions for a successful challenge, conditions they believe will not be met less than a year after Corbyn’s victory.

When Tony Blair resigned as Labour leader in 2007, he had already agreed not to fight the next general election and faced a pre-eminent rival in Gordon Brown. Neither situation exists today. The last Labour leader to be constitutionally deposed was J R Clynes in 1922 – when MPs, not members, were sovereign. Politics past and present militate against Corbyn’s opponents. There is but one man who can remove the leader: himself.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 06 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The longest hatred