The Tory stealth attack on the NHS

If the Tories have their way, they will break apart the health system, just like our schools. This i

The new coalition government has made a great deal out of ring-fencing the health budget, giving the public the impression that the National Health Service will not suffer the cuts that other departments are facing. It is fast becoming clear, however, that there will be significant cuts in health like everywhere else. Plans put forward by the Conservative Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, if allowed to proceed, will undermine the structure and principles of the NHS in the largest overhaul of the service since its foundation.

The idea is to hand over the NHS budget to GPs, who will then commission services on behalf of individual patients. There has been little public discussion of the proposals, and the extent of the planned reorganisation - and the commensurate cuts in budget - is only now leaking from private briefings to key managers.

The NHS budget for 2010-2011 is £110bn and there are around 40,000 GPs working in England and Wales. At present, the budget is divided among the ten strategic health authorities (SHAs), which devolve it down to primary care trusts (PCTs). The strategic authorities set strategy and hold local delivery agents to account. The PCTs commission services from hospitals, GPs, opticians and primary services. Trusts have increasingly been forging strong links with local authorities to provide social care to the elderly and people with disabilities or other needs.
Under the plans, this infrastructure will be demolished and the SHAs abolished. The PCTs might survive, but with reduced powers and little or no authority over budgets or services; it is most likely that they will simply be employed by doctors as the administrative mechanism to purchase health services for individual patients. Richard Sykes, chairman of the London SHA, recently resigned in protest.

The last major reorganisation of the NHS took place in 2002 and has therefore had less than a decade to settle. The PCTs are midway through a restructuring process to separate the provider arm from the commissioners; now, no one seems to be sure whether this will proceed. There are undoubtedly bureaucratic tangles, but these are not insurmountable.

Stealth care

The new vision for GP-led commissioning envisages both sole practitioners and group practices handling the entire budget and commissioning services for their patients from hospitals, local authorities, private companies and primary services. There are questions concerning the details, not least whether GPs will want to take on this responsibility. Will single GPs be prepared or be able to commission such a wide range of services, or will they delegate to a consortium of local doctors? Will they subcontract the commissioning process to private companies involved in health care and so bring privatisation to the NHS by stealth?

It is not clear where public consultation fits into the GP-led model. The Health Secretary may argue that, because decisions are made with individual patients, this is inherently a form of consultation. But it would constitute a fragmentation of the pro­cess, as there would be no forum for leading discussion on, for example, investing in new specialist trauma services at particular hospitals, or reconfiguring stroke services. The SHAs have been the lead agencies conducting consultations. If they are abolished, this kind of consultation may also be lost.

It is also unclear how strategic decision-making will be conducted, if at all. Just as the schools system is being broken apart, taking away the strategic responsibilities of local authorities, so it is with health. The "big society" seems to mean the abolition of the collective.

Public health will be another casualty. Lives are saved through the promotion of healthy lifestyles and public education, as well as programmes to help people, say, give up smoking. Focusing such attention on health inequalities is one of the ways that we direct health services at the poor. But it appears that the expenditure on public health initiatives will be slashed from 7 per cent of the allocated budget to just 4 per cent.

PCTs are being told to reduce their management and administrative costs by roughly 50 per cent. The effect of this is to hobble any attempt at strategic management. Many targets have now been abandoned. Although there has been some unease at the rigidity of target culture, it is undeniable that imposing targets and holding people to account for specific time limits in accident and emergency units, for seeing a consultant and for performing operations have saved and improved the lives of millions of people.

Cities will be particularly hard hit by Lansley's shake-up. In London, there are probably several hundred thousand people who are not registered with a GP and they will not be able to get any access to health care. Anyone who is not eligible to register with a GP could be denied medical and health services.

Ask a doctor

Since its foundation, the NHS has been redistributive. It was designed to redistribute to the poor so that health inequalities are reduced. Its success has been patchy, but that objective is embedded at all levels and in every service. If strategic planning is abolished and service purchasing is fragmented, the aim of reducing inequality will be abandoned, too.

Lansley is a man on a mission who has been developing these ideas from his constituency, South Cambridgeshire. No one I have spoken to seems to know if he has been talking to the doctors themselves.

If his plans are fully instituted, GPs' contracts would have to be renegotiated and they would be well advised to consider whether it is to their advantage - and that of their patients - to take over responsibility for managing the NHS. It could be a poisoned chalice. Doctors could be made to take the blame if the plan collapses, leading the way to the wholesale privatisation of the NHS.

Also opaque is the extent to which these proposals form part of an ideological programme under the leadership of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the coalition cabinet, or whether ministers are being left to their own devices. There are similarities between the proposed education and health policies, but they do not appear to be co-ordinated as part of a coherent vision for the country. Every postwar government has come in with a clear ideology and a plan; for good or for ill, we knew what we were getting. The Conservatives have not presented this health plan to the public, and it is not even evident that they have made it clear to their coalition partners.

NHS agencies are being told that the new structure should be in place by 1 April 2012. There has been no announcement about any
of these changes - no public consultation and no critical review. Yet here they come.

Frances Crook is a non-executive director of a primary care trust and writes here in a personal capacity.

Journey of the GP

Before the Second World War, health care in the UK was piecemeal at best. The poor had little right to care - the lowest-paid workers could consult a GP, but their families could not - and many relied on charity.

This changed with the creation of the National Health Service in 1948. In a huge shift, each resident of the UK was from this point registered with a GP, who would act as the individual's point of entry into the medical system. In the early days of the NHS, GPs were demoralised, suffering from low pay and status. GP practices as they exist now began in 1955, when money was made available for individual doctors to develop grouppractices.

In 1990, while Margaret Thatcher was still prime minister, the "internal market" was formed; this allowed certain practices to buy services from other parts of the NHS. Successive reforms under Labour have left a similar system in place.

Meanwhile, GPs' status has improved, with recent contract changes allowing them to opt out of working during weekends and in the evenings. The press has criticised their pay as excessive. The figure is extremely variable, but a full-time practice partner now earns about £110,000, while a salaried GP earns approximately £74,000. A 2006 report showed that some GPs were earning £250,000 a year.

Samira Shackle.

Frances Crook is the Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

This article first appeared in the 05 July 2010 issue of the New Statesman, The cult of the generals

Picture: David Parkin
Show Hide image

The humbling of Theresa May

The Prime Minister has lost all authority. The Tories will remove her as soon as they feel the time is right.

Being politicians of unsentimental, ruthless realism, the Conservatives did not linger in the grief stage of their collective disaster after the general election. Disbelief, too, was commendably brief.

Currently, their priority is to impose some sort of order on themselves. This is the necessary prelude to the wholesale change that most see as the next phase in their attempt at recovery, which they all know is essential to their career prospects – and believe is vital to a country whose alternative prime minister is Jeremy Corbyn.

For that reason, talk of Theresa May enduring as Prime Minister until the end of the Brexit negotiations in two years’ time is the preserve of just a few wishful thinkers. Some sort of calm is being established but the party is far from settled or united; there is a widespread conviction that it cannot be so under the present leader.

Elements of the great change have been executed, as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, May’s former advisers, will testify.

However, this is only beginning, as shown by the debate in the media about how long May can survive in Downing Street. There is dissatisfaction about elements of her recent reshuffle, but it is quieted because few believe that some of the more contentious appointments or reappointments will last more than a matter of months. Her colleagues are also alarmed by the meal she has made of doing what was supposed to be a straightforward deal with the DUP.

The climate in the party at the moment is one in which everything – jobs, policies and, of course, the leadership – will soon be up for grabs. Debate over “hard” and “soft” Brexits is illusory: anyone who wants to be Conservative leader will need to respect the view of the party in the country, which is that Britain must leave the single market and the customs union to regain control of trade policy and borders. That is one reason why the prospects of David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, are being talked up.

Some of May’s MPs, for all their hard-mindedness about the future, speak of feeling “poleaxed” since the general election. Even before the result changed everything, there was dismay about the bad national campaign; but that, it was felt, could be discussed in a leisurely post-mortem.

Now, instead, it has undermined faith in May’s leadership and credibility. “The social care disaster was key to our defeat,” an MP told me. “It wasn’t just that the policy damaged our core vote, it was the amateurishness of the U-turn.” A more seasoned colleague noted that “it was the first election I’ve fought where we succeeded in pissing off every section of our core vote”.

The limited ministerial reshuffle was inevitable given May’s lack of authority, and summed up her untenability beyond the short term. Most of her few important changes were deeply ill judged: notably the sacking of the skills and apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon, the MP for Harlow in Essex, and a rare Tory with a direct line to the working class; and the Brexit minister David Jones, whose job had hardly begun and whose boss, Davis, was not consulted.

George Bridges, another Brexit minister, who resigned, apparently did so because he felt May had undermined the government’s position in the negotiations so badly, by failing to win the election comprehensively, that he could not face going on.

Much has been made of how Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, was marginalised and briefed against, yet reappointed. Patrick McLoughlin, the party chairman, suffered similarly. Conservative Central Office was largely shut out from the catastrophic campaign, though no one got round to briefing against McLoughlin, who kept his head down – unheard-of conduct by a party chairman in an election.

As a political force, Central Office is for now more or less impotent. It has lost the knack of arguing the case for Conservatism. MPs are increasingly worried that their party is so introspective that it just can’t deal with the way Corbyn is spinning his defeat. “An ugly mood is growing,” one said, “because militant leftism is going unchallenged.” That cannot change until May has gone and the party machine is revived and re-inspired.

***

Nobody in the party wants a general election: but most want a leadership election, and minds are concentrated on how to achieve the latter without precipitating the former. One angry and disillusioned ex-minister told me that “if there were an obvious candidate she’d be shitting herself. But most of us have realised Boris is a wanker, DD isn’t a great communicator and is a bit up himself, Hammond has no charisma, and Amber [Rudd] has a majority of 346.”

On Monday a group of senior ex-ministers met at Westminster to discuss next steps. It was agreed that, with the Brexit talks under way, the most important thing in the interests of restoring order was securing the vote on the Queen’s Speech. Then, May having done her duty and steadied the proverbial ship, the party would manage her dignified and calm evacuation from Downing Street.

Those who agree on this do not always agree on the timing. However, few can make the leap of imagination required to see her addressing the party conference in October, unless to say “Thank you and goodnight” and to initiate a leadership contest. Many would like her out long before then. The only reason they don’t want it this side of securing the Queen’s Speech is that the result, as one put it, would be “chaos”, with a leadership contest resembling “a circular firing squad”.

That metaphor is popular among Tories these days. Others use it to describe the ­apportioning of blame after the election. As well as Timothy and Hill, Lynton Crosby has sustained severe wounds that may prevent the Tories from automatically requesting his services again.

Following the Brexit referendum and Zac Goldsmith’s nasty campaign for the London mayoralty, Crosby has acquired the habit of losing. And then there was Ben Gummer, blamed not only for the social care debacle, but also for upsetting fishermen with a vaguely couched fisheries policy. These failings are becoming ancient history – and the future, not the past, is now the urgent matter – yet some Conservatives still seethe about them despite trying to move on.

“I haven’t heard anyone say she should stay – except Damian Green,” a former minister observed, referring to the new First Secretary of State. Green was at Oxford with May and seems to have earned his job because he is one of her rare friends in high politics. He is regarded as sharing her general lack of conviction.

Older activists recall how the party, in 1974, clung loyally to Ted Heath after he lost one election, and even after he lost a second. Now, deference is over. Most Tory activists, appalled by the handling of the campaign, want change. They would, however, like a contest: annoyed at not having been consulted last time, they intend not to be left silent again.

That view is largely reflected at Westminster, though a few MPs believe a coronation wouldn’t be a problem, “as we don’t want a public examination of the entrails for weeks on end when we need to be shown to be running the country effectively”. Most MPs disagree with that, seeing where a coronation got them last time.

With the summer recess coming up, at least the public’s attention would not be on Westminster if the contest took place mostly during that time: hence the feeling that, once the Queen’s Speech is dealt with, May should announce her intention to leave, in order to have a successor in place before the conference season. It is then up to the party to design a timetable that compresses the hustings between the final two candidates into as short a time as compatible with the democratic process, to get the new leader in place swiftly.

Some letters requesting a contest are said to have reached Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers. One MP told me with great authority that there were eight; another, with equal certainty, said 12. Forty-eight are needed to trigger the procedure. However, engineering such a contest is not how most Tories would like to proceed. “She has had an international humiliation,” a former cabinet minister said, “and it is transparently ghastly for her. Then came the [Grenfell Tower] fire. There is no sense our rubbing it in. I suspect she knows she has to go. We admire her for staying around and clearing up the mess in a way Cameron didn’t. But she is a stopgap.”

MPs believe, with some justification, that the last thing most voters want is another general election, so caution is paramount. None doubts that the best outcome for all concerned would be for May to leave without being pushed.

Her tin-eared response to the Grenfell disaster shocked colleagues with its amateurishness and disconnection. “I’m sure she’s very upset by Grenfell,” someone who has known her since Oxford said. “But she is incapable of showing empathy. She has no bridge to the rest of the world other than Philip.” Another, referring to the controversial remark that torpedoed Andrea Leadsom’s leadership ambitions last year, said: “You would get shot for saying it, but not having had children hasn’t helped her when it comes to relating to people. Leadsom was right.”

***

May was quicker off the mark on Monday, issuing a statement condemning the appalling attack at Finsbury Park Mosque swiftly after it occurred, and going there shortly afterwards to meet community leaders. No one could fault her assurance that Muslims must enjoy the same protection under the law as everyone else, or the speed and sincerity with which it was made. She is learning what leadership entails, but too late.

Her administration has become unlucky. This happened to John Major, but, as in his case, the bad luck is partly down to bad decisions; and the bad luck that comes out of the blue simply piles in on top of everything else. Grenfell Tower, lethal and heartbreaking for its victims and their families, was merely more bad luck for the Prime Minister because of her slow-witted response and failure – presumably because shorn of her closest advisers – to do the right thing, and to do it quickly.

But then it turned out that her new chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, had in his previous incarnation as a housing minister received a report on improving fire safety in tower blocks and done nothing about it. That is either more bad luck, or it shows May has dismal judgement in the quality of people she appoints to her close circle. Form suggests the latter.

The idea aired last weekend, that May had “ten days to prove herself”, was a minority view. For most of her colleagues it is too late. It was typical of Boris Johnson’s dwindling band of cheerleaders that they should broadcast a story supporting Davis as an “interim” leader: “interim” until Johnson’s credibility has recovered sufficiently for him to have another pop at the job he covets so much.

They also sought to create the impression that Davis is on manoeuvres, which he resolutely is not. Davis has been around long enough to know that if he wants to succeed May – and his friends believe he does – he cannot be seen to do anything to destabilise her further. It is a lesson lost on Johnson’s camp, whose tactics have damaged their man even more than he was already.

Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary and a close ally of Davis, told the Guardian: “. . . it is simply untrue that he is doing anything other
than focusing on his incredibly important brief and giving loyal support to the Prime Minister. Anyone suggesting otherwise is freelancing.” That summed up the contempt Davis’s camp has for Johnson, and it will last long beyond any leadership race.

There is a sense that, in the present febrile climate, whoever is the next leader must be highly experienced. Davis qualifies; so does Hammond, who before his present job was foreign secretary and defence secretary, and who has belatedly displayed a mind of his own since May was hobbled. Hugo Swire, a minister of state under Hammond in the Foreign Office, said of him: “He’s got bottom. He was very good to work for. He is an homme sérieux. I liked him very much and he would calm things down.”

But, as yet, there is no contest. Calls for calm have prevailed, not least thanks to Graham Brady’s steady stewardship of the 1922 Committee, and his success in convincing the more hot-headed of his colleagues to hold their fire. Yet MPs say the 1922 is not what it was 20 years ago: ministers have become used to taking it less seriously.

However, many MPs expect Brady, at a time of their choosing, to go to Downing Street and deliver the poison pill to Theresa May if she is slow to go. Some who know her fear she might take no notice. If she were to play it that way, her end would be unpleasant. As the old saying goes, there is the easy way, and there is the hard way. Remarkably few of her colleagues want to go the hard way but, like everything else in the Tory party at the moment, that could change.

Simon Heffer is a journalist, author and political commentator, who has worked for long stretches at the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. He has written biographies of Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Vaughan Williams and Enoch Powell, and reviews and writes on politics for the New Statesman

This article first appeared in the 22 June 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The zombie PM

0800 7318496