Holey private: dreams of health for loadsamoney. Photo: BBC
Show Hide image

Theatres of the absurd: the unadulterated horror of Harley Street

Six months of treatment for cancer? A mere £30,000 at London's most exclusive clinics.

Inside Harley Street

Don’t be misled by the outwardly jaunty tone: in her new films about Harley Street (Mondays, 9pm), the documentary-maker Vanessa Engle has opened a vein of unadulterated horror. How desperate people are, and how deluded. I suppose we all know that human beings will cough up almost any amount of cash in pursuit of hope. But it’s surprising and rather devastating to find that they also write vast cheques in exchange for hugs, handshakes and empty blandishments. “You look great!” trills a plastic surgeon to her seventysomething-year-old patient as she arrives at her consulting room post-facelift, looking like something out of a Channel 4 drama about domestic violence. Beneath her gaze, the patient, bruised and battered, blooms like a flower. It seems not to occur to her that the doctor is merely praising her own (very expensive) handiwork.

Engle (Jews, Women, Welcome to the World of Weight Loss) has a satirical eye and is known for asking her interviewees blunt questions (“What’s your worst fear? That he might die from cancer?”). But what I like best about her technique is her swift, minimalist way with folly. So deftly does she lay it out – she is the surgeon here – that we’ve no option but to fall into line in the matter of judgement. Will a hair transplant change a young man’s life? It seems unlikely, and perhaps his mother is weeping because she already knows that it won’t. Will a husband appreciate, or even notice, his wife’s umpteenth cosmetic procedure? Well, anything for a quiet life; but no. Is it really possible to believe that, as a doctor, you were put on the earth to perform liposuction on sad young women? Definitely not, for all that you might well have a carefully prepared line about making people “feel” better.

Engle’s series is in three parts. The first film focuses on those who visit Harley Street because they are sick and the doctors who treat them. The second (airs 20 April) is about plastic surgery (I watched a preview because once I’d seen the first film I couldn’t bear not to). The third is about complementary therapies (ditto). The last two films are, I think, better than the first, and you should certainly try to catch them; I can’t remember a bit of observational TV that made me feel more disapprovingly Protestant, feminist and, above all, rationalist. But the first film had its moments, too. I do see that if you have cancer, and enough money, you might want to opt out of the NHS. Then again, if the highly qualified professional I was paying hundreds of quid an hour addressed my mother with the words “Hello, Mum!” I think my fear would temporarily shade into indignation. Equally mystifying was the young woman who wanted to be treated for breast cancer by the same clinic that had cared for her father. She wanted, she said, to share the same cancer “journey”. This dear dad, by the way, had since died.

The sums involved made your eyes pop. Six months of treatment for cancer? A mere £30,000. I tried to unpick the complicated mathematics of risk, faith and profit, but it was tricky. All the doctors involved confessed to having private insurance. Then again, the leading urologist Professor Roger Kirby admitted that the NHS had the same equipment as his clinic; the difference is that he offers a more personalised service (for instance: making the effort to learn the Norwegian word for “cured” while treating a patient from Oslo). How did they feel about working in the private sector? Not too conflicted, I would say. Only one, Professor Justin Stebbing, who runs a cancer research unit in the NHS alongside his Harley Street practice, said it sat “badly” with him.

And how did the patients feel about handing over their credit cards? Pretty good. One woman, pterodactyl-like behind glasses as big as television screens, had no idea how much her medical bills came to. “This is like asking Cameron how much a bottle of milk is,” she said, en route to her Bentley. Still, in the matter of serious illness (as opposed to the chap who rings his private GP at 2am and demands to have his blood pressure checked on returning from the casino), pity usually trumps politics, or so I find. Save your outrage for the next two films, which are Engle at her very best – and that’s really saying something.

Rachel Cooke trained as a reporter on The Sunday Times. She is now a writer at The Observer. In the 2006 British Press Awards, she was named Interviewer of the Year.

This article first appeared in the 17 April 2015 issue of the New Statesman, The Election Special

Show Hide image

Anti-semitism and the left: something is rotten in the state of Labour

Labour held three separate inquiries into anti-Semitism within its ranks during the first part of 2016. A new book by Dave Rich investigates how we got to this point.

The relationship between the left and the Jews has always been a complex one – ostensibly harmonious but with an underlying unease. For decades, the left’s ideological stance against racism and intolerance made it – in Britain, at least – a natural home for Jews. Its largest party, Labour, could rely on a majority share of Britain’s Jewish vote. Yet the 19th-century German socialist August Bebel, who described anti-Semitism as “the socialism of fools”, understood that, like a tumour, it has always existed in the left-wing body politic.

It is this duality that Dave Rich seeks to explore in his impressive and important book. How, he asks, did we get to the situation in which Labour, the party whose founding principles include opposing bigotry, felt the need to hold three separate inquiries into anti-Semitism within its ranks during the first part of 2016?

For so long, the dichotomy was simple, consisting of a clash of two notions of the Jew: an oppressed figure deserving of the left’s solidarity and the perennial embodiment of socialism’s great enemy, capitalism. In the words of (the Jewish) Karl Marx:


What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money . . . Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . . . The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew.


Whether or not Marx meant the words ironically (as many academics contend), he articulated the most prominent leftist critique of Jews of his time. However, as Britain’s former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has argued, anti-Semitism, like any virus, must mutate to survive. Now the most significant word in the quotation above – which Marx uses figuratively – is not “money”, as he would have seen it, but “Israel”.

As Rich notes, the link between British Jews and Israel is almost inviolable. While support for Israeli policies is mixed (there is much opposition to the settlements), he records that 82 per cent of British Jews say that the country plays a central role in their identity, while 90 per cent see it as the ancestral home of the Jewish people. Set against this is his (correct) observation that: “Sympathy for the Palestinian cause and opposition to Israel have become the default position for many on the left – a defining marker of what it means to be progressive.” He argues that once you discover what someone on the left thinks about Israel and Zionism, you can usually guess his or her views on terrorism, Islamist extremism, military intervention and British-American relations.

When Stalin’s show trials and bloodlust finally discredited communism, many on the left, bereft of an ideology, fell into a dull, almost perfunctory anti-Americanism, dressed up as “anti-imperialism”. Intellectually flaccid but emotionally charged, this strand of thought became – to those on the hard left who had for so long been confined to the margins – all-encompassing. The dictum “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, in effect, was adopted as its slogan. Any Middle Eastern or South American dictatorship that “stands up” to the US ipso facto is an ally, as is any Islamist hate preacher who does so. Israel, viewed as a US-backed colonial outpost, became the physical manifestation of all that was wrong with the world.

With Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader last year, this particular leftist world-view entered the heart of the party. In 2008, Corbyn wrote of the Balfour Declaration – the UK government’s promise to British Jews of a homeland in Palestine – that it had “led to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion of Palestinians . . . Britain’s history of colonial interference . . . leaves it with much to answer for.” The description of Israel as a colonialist enterprise, rather than a movement for sovereignty through national independence, and the culpability of an “imperial” Britain, encapsulate the twin impulses that drive Corbyn’s beliefs about foreign affairs.

The problem, Rich argues, is that it is just a short step from these beliefs to the ideas that Israel should not exist and that its Western supporters, who include most Jews, are racists. Combined with a resurgence of social media-charged conspiracies about Zionist wealth and power, the left has formed an anti-racist politics that is blind to anti-Semitism. Jews are privileged; they are wealthy; they cannot be victims.

Thus, “Zionist” has become not a term to describe a political position but an insult; thus, Jews, unless they denounce Israel (their “original sin”), are excluded from the left that now dominates the Labour Party. When such ideas become normalised, anything is possible. Jackie Walker, the recently suspended vice-chairwoman of the Corbyn-supporting group Momentum, can claim with sincerity that “many Jews” were the “chief financiers” of the slave trade, a modern myth and piece of bigotry popularised by the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan – a notorious anti-Semite – in a 1991 book.

By the middle of this year, as many as 20 Labour Party members had been suspended or expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. At times, Rich appears bewildered. Though he never articulates it, the question “What has happened to my party?” echoes through these pages. Is it a case of just a few bad ­apples, or is the whole barrelful rotten? The answer, Rich concludes convincingly, in this powerful work that should be read by everyone on the left, is sadly the latter. 

The Left’s Jewish Problem by Dave Rich is published by Biteback, 292pp, £12.99

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood