The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Will Lansley be "taken out and shot"?

Speculation about the Health Secretary's future continues to grow.

By George Eaton Published 07 February 2012 11:35

Speculation that Andrew Lansley will be sacked has been growing for weeks and this morning's papers will do nothing to diminish it.

In her Times column (£), entitled "Is Lansley the exception to the no-sacking policy?", Rachel Sylvester quotes one Downing Street source as saying that the Health Secretary "should be taken out and shot. He's messed up both the communication and the substance of the policy."

Sylvester reports on an "intriguing idea" circulating in No 10: that Alan Milburn should be offered a seat in the Lords and his old job as Health Secretary. It's not hard to see why Cameron, who, by his account, picked up the baton of reform from Blair, might be tempted by this option.

But as Sylvester notes in a less conspicuous passage:

Both Mr Cameron and George Osborne are remarkably loyal to Mr Lansley, who was their boss at the Conservative Research Department.

Elsewhere, today's Daily Mirror reports on comments by James O'Shaughnessy, formerly one of David Cameron's No 10 advisers and now a lobbyist. "Actually, if you look at where we got to on the Health Bill, the fundamentals of what we were trying to do are still there," he said. This isn't news. Indeed, Lansley himself has boasted that the "fundamental principles" of the bill remain. But more damaging is O'Shaughnessy's admission that last summer's legislative "pause" was merely a "tactic" to get the bill through.

However, it's precisely because the "fundamentals" of the bill remain that it's hard to see Cameron either sacking Lansley or abandoning the reforms. He missed his chance to do that last summer. As the bill re-enters the Lords, the likelihood is that Lansley will live to fight another day.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: NHS

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

17 comments

Tue, 2012-02-07 16:19 — Kippers

Indeed the fundamental principles of the Bill remain the same. It is only the LibDems who think otherwise. It is the fundamental principles that are damaging and likely to cause chaos.

Wed, 2012-02-08 14:04 — Des Demona (not verified)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-r...

These figures seem to contradict Lox's glowing appreciation on how great foreign health care is.

We spend less per capita than most and have more doctors nurses and hospital beds. If you really want to drill down then there is no evidence that the healthcare is better either.

Wed, 2012-02-08 14:40 — redscribe

Of course he has the 'fundamentals' right from the Tory point of view. This is about demolishing the NHS, and not slowly. Making it smell sweet is something no-one could do, so they are not going to get rid of Lansley and put someone else in the hot seat to attract the same odium.

This policy has no democratic mandate whatsoever, nothing in any election manifesto said they were going to demolish the NHS in this way. And since it has no democratic mandate, then even in formal terms, the gloves should come right off in dealing with the government that is carrying this out.

Wed, 2012-02-08 14:54 — Des Demona (not verified)

I agree with the sentiment of the headline but given the Paul Chambers twitter trial is the 'insider' who said it risking falling foul of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003?

And I agree completely with redscribe above.

Tue, 2012-02-07 18:36 — demonax3

Shooting too good-make him eat money and bandages. He is wickedness personified.

Tue, 2012-02-07 18:48 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Surely shooting is too good for this Civil Service retiree on a government pension.
|After what Lansley has already done to the NHS, an endoscopic rectal and bowel exam without a mild anaesthetic would not be amiss.

Some of us have had such an internal exam with and without pain relief.
Before the recent election we of advanced years could rely on such palliative care when a procedure of this nature was being carried out.
Grin and bear it - after the NHS was gifted to Messers Lansley and Cameron.

Carry on Regardless

Thu, 2012-02-09 14:48 — JacquesOuze

Going back to the original article, Lansley obviously won't be taken out and shot any time soon, although I doubt if many would shed a tear on either side. Once the tattered remains of the bill has been crow barred onto the statute book, they will find a reasonably dignified exit for him. The narrative will be that a different skill set is required to deliver the bill, now that it has royal assent.

The replacement will be the problem. They will need someone capable of repairing the damage with the powerful groups that Lansley has offended and alienated, someon who can establish credibility with the service and someone capable of making a silk purse out of this porcine auricula of a piece of legislation. Or might Cameron offer it to Liam Fox as the first step towards his redemption? Now there's a thought to conjour with.

Tue, 2012-02-07 19:32 — Lox (not verified)

As Nigel Lawson once said, the NHS is the closest thing to a state religion in the UK. It really is an article of faith: despite clear evidence from other countries showing that a blend of private and publicly funded healthcare leads to materially better outcomes, the only thing that the left can see wrong with the NHS is that it should be given more money as an end in itself. Socialists and dogma...you'd think you were all lapsed catholics or something.

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:48 — AndyPW

Revoking the changes may not be easy even for a future Labour government who wants to. Once contracts have been signed with private contractors the cost of undoing them may be prohibitive. Contracts that will almost certainly have commercial confidentiality clauses, so we will never know whether we are getting good value or not.

This is one reason this bill is so dangerous. It is a one way street with no coming back, and no way of knowing if it has been good or bad.

Tue, 2012-02-07 21:05 — Neil (not verified)

Let me get this straight. This is a bill which will pave the way for NHS privatisation despite not being in anyone's manifesto.
And now that the entire health profession is against the reforms, and with the prospect of wasting billions in this experiment, Cameron is persisting with it to save both himself and his minister from an embarrassing climbdown.
In no other walk of life would so much money (public let alone private) be wasted for the sake of someone's reputation.
No one's ideology is greater than the public's affection for the NHS.
The public will never forgive the Tories or the Lib Dems if in 10 year's time we are all paying extortionate health insurance for a poorer service.
Why isn't Miliband calling this the NHS privatisation bill? For that is what it amounts to. If he really cared, he would promise to revoke these reforms and at a stroke kill the propsects for the healthcare vulture capitalists.

Tue, 2012-02-07 21:33 — Livers (not verified)

@Lox

Nope. Show me the clear evidence that shows materially better outcomes please.

And note *outcomes* plural.

Wed, 2012-02-08 19:45 — Lox (not verified)

AJ, you're absolutely right. My post last night should have had the word "other" before "Scandinavian". Not that anyone's being pedantic or anything.

You set up an Aunt Sally by stating how bad the US system is. You're right, it seems to be less effective than the NHS. And your point is what? That it's one or the other?

Des Demona, you refer to figures quoting cost, nurses/doctors per head of population: these are completely secondary. I referred last night to outcomes-patient satisfaction, infant mortality and cancer survival rates. You haven't questioned these, have you?

In my original post on this thread I commented that for many on the left the NHS is a sacred cow. You've proved my point.

Wed, 2012-02-08 00:17 — Lox (not verified)

Livers: check out user satisfaction figures, infant mortality rates, or cancer survival rates-for example- in Germany, France, Australia or Japan or Sweden or Canada, where government expenditure accounts for a much lower percentage of medical care than it does in the UK-or Scandinavian countries, where healthcare is either highly decentralised or a blend of decentralised services and private services.

Let me be clear-I think that the NHS is valuable institution, and I do not believe in wholesale privatisation. But I do believe in a combination of decentralisation to elected local government and access to private insurance-perhaps by a choice made annually between state monitored, non-profit organisations, as in France. And I think that there's something perverse about the horror some people feel at the thought of the private sector being involved in healthcare, when-let's face it-many of the doctors, and nurses and other professionals working in the NHS are motivated mostly by a desire for personal gain. As most people are: I like my job, but I doubt if I'd do it if I didn't need the money. My point is that a desire for private gain-on an individual level-drives the NHS as much as it does the workers at John Lewis or Apple or Nike.
Let's be realistic. The NHS isn't going to be privatised, nor should it be. But it should be decentralised, and it should be one of a range of healthcare options people have access to.

The NHS is flawed-every institution is. But the point I was making above is that no-one does anyone any favours by treating it as a sacred cow.

Wed, 2012-02-08 09:36 — AJ (not verified)

Lox:
Your list of countries better than the UK and Scandanavian countries includes Sweden!

Nobody thinks the NHS is anywhere near perfect and the magnitude of the task is so large that it is inevitable that there are problems but by focusing only on problems we lose perspective of the big picture which is that it is very low cost for the outcomes it delivers. I have lived in the US and I am terrified we seem to be moving towards their system which has worse outcomes and higher costs.

The NHS is inefficent in areas but the challenge is how to improve this without making things worse. The private model leads to even higher inefficencies and a bias towards the most profitable rather tha most effective treatments. When I went to my GP in the US there was the GP plus two nurses and an open plan office with 8? insurance administrators.

Tue, 2012-02-07 12:44 — AndyPW

La-La say bye bye.