The pressure rises on Andrew Lansley

The Health Secretary failed to rebut the charge that his reforms are "a disruption and a distraction

The coalition's decision to embark on the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history always sat uneasily with the need for the service to make record efficiency savings of £20bn. Indeed, the project was once succinctly described by the British Medical Journal as "mad". Now, the health select committee, chaired by the former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell, has warned that the reforms are acting as a "disruption and distraction" and are hindering the NHS's ability to make savings. The committee argues that the health service is relying on short-term cuts and "salami-slicing" to save money, instead of re-thinking the way care is delivered. It all sounds much like the "perfect storm" that Hamish Meldrum, the head of the British Medical Association, spoke of in his interview with NS editor Jason Cowley in this week's magazine.

"It is self-defeating to cut services for patients in order to then re-invest to improve them", an anxious-sounding Andrew Lansley declared on the Today programme this morning (see below). But that is exactly what the Health Secretary stands accused of doing. Moreover, he failed to rebut the central charge that his reforms are undermining the NHS's attempt to save £4bn a year.

Lansley: NHS efficiency savings being done "the right way" (mp3)

David Cameron worked hard in opposition to convince the public that the Conservatives could be trusted with the NHS but it has become one of the biggest headaches for his government. Lansley's chaotic reforms have destroyed Cameron's ambition to depoliticise the issue. As Lord Ashcroft recently observed in his report Project Blueprint: Winning a Conservative majority in 2015, "nobody seemed to know why the reforms were needed and how, even in theory, they were supposed to improve things for patients." Just 20 per cent of voters believe that the NHS is "safe in David Cameron's hands" and Labour has established a 12-point lead over the Tories on health policy.

So, as Lenin asked, what is to be done? Lansley's opponents are determined to see the bill dropped but the widely-respected Dorrell insisted on Today that it was too late to go back. A dramatic U-turn would cause even more disruption, he suggested.

Lansley's own future is less certain. The Health Secretary has failed in the eyes of NHS staff and increasingly lacks the political authority needed to explain and defend the reforms. Should Chris Huhne's legal travails force Cameron to reshuffle his cabinet, he may well take an opportunity to move the discredited Lansley.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era