In the Critics this week

Jonathan Wilson on football, T S Eliot's letters and James A Robinson on China.

In the Critics section of this week’s New Statesman, Jonathan Wilson laments the loss of tactical innovation in football: “For a time, World Cups were won by countries that best executed a new way of playing the game,” he writes. He cites England’s 6-3 defeat to Hungary at Wembley in 1953; British suspicion of ‘pseudo-intellectualism’ saw the home team stick to a 25-year-old formation, only to be blindsided by Hungary’s decision to move a centre-forward to midfield. “Tournaments used regularly to throw up such scenarios,” says Wilson, “but these days we know more. Even without internet streaming … it’s just not possible for a team to stun the world with an entirely new incarnation of football.” Club players study systematised routines, writes Wilson, but at international level time is limited, rendering the game “inherently – unavoidably – conservative.”

Adam Kirsch reviews The Letters of T S Eliot, Volume III: 1926-27, edited by Valerie Eliot and John Haffenden. Eliot published little poetry in 1926-27, explains Kirsch, devoting much time instead to his position as editor of the Criterion. “Readers who come to the letters for insights into Eliot the man or poet will surely be frustrated,” Kirsch writes; “about three-quarters of them are devoted to routine editorial business.” The volume displays Eliot’s progression from “iconoclastic American poet” to “devout English man of letters,” says Kirsch, but one must read around the letters for the most interesting story, “that of Eliot’s spiritual evolution, of which his professional and literary evolution was an index.” In “loving and unguarded moments”, writes Kirsch, such as the letter the poet wrote to his ill mother, Eliot emerges as both constrained and consoled by Christianity, “as the man he was disappears inside the man he chose to become.” 

In the Books interview, Jonathan Derbyshire talks to political scientist James A Robinson about his book Why Nations Fail, which argues that political institutions are vital to economic growth: “It’s the way that societies organise their economy and their policy that is crucial for how successful they are,” explains Robinson. It is not about leaders or geography, he says: “the idea that Sierra Leone, for example is poor because of malaria or because it’s in the tropics is absurd.” What “distinguishes east Asia from, say, sub-Saharan Africa, is the history of political centralisation,” he says. China will not sustain its current boom, he cautions: “The thing the Chinese Communist Party really cares about is staying in power”; in a “choice between allowing the institutional changes that will drive development or staying in power, it will choose staying in power.”

Also in Books: David Herman reviews Golden Harvest: Events at the periphery of the Holocaust by Jan Tomasz Gross; Maurice Walsh looks at the life of John Casement in his review of Mario Vargas Llosa’s The Dream of the Celt; Philippa Stockley reviews The London Square: Gardens in the Midst of Town by Todd Langstaffe-Gowan; plus novelist Francine Prose on the great writers who inspire her.

Elsewhere in the Critics: Leo Hollis on the changing look of the City; David Flusfeder on Radio 3; Ryan Gilbey on David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis;  Will Self’s ‘Real Meals’; Rachel Cooke reviews The Men Who Made Us Fat; and Sophie Elmhirst on the perennial problem of noise.

From American iconoclast to devout Anglican: TS Eliot (Photo: Hulton Archive/Getty)
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.