Maria Hutchings under fire again as doctors protest over state school comments

Eight doctors criticise the Conservative Eastleigh by-election candidate after she claimed it would be "impossible" for her son to become a surgeon if he went to state school.

With parliament in recess, even more attention will be concentrated on the Eastleigh by-election in the last full week of campaigning. All Conservative MPs have been instructed to make at least three visits to the constituency before polling day on 28 February and it's not hard to detect increasing nervousness in the Tory camp about the party's chances of taking the seat off the Lib Dems. Interviewed on The Sunday Politics yesterday, Conservative chairman Grant Shapps, who defended Tory candidate Maria Hutching's comments on state education, did not sound like a man confident of winning. The Lib Dems' local advantage - the party holds all 36 council seats in the constituency - is beginning to tell, with the party estimated to have three times as many helpers as the Tories. 

The row over Hutchings, who claimed that it would be "impossible" for her son to become a surgeon if he went to a state school, is rumbling on this morning after eight doctors signed an open letter criticising her comments. The medics, all of whom were state educated, wrote: 

 

As GPs and surgeons who all started their education at state-funded schools, we are proof that Maria Hutchings' assertions are not true. The education system in this country provided us with the knowledge and skills we needed to follow our dream career.

It's such a shame that Conservatives like Maria Hutchings want to do our education system down instead of sending the message that whatever your background, you can achieve what you set out to do in life.

The imbroglio is a good example of why, as I wrote the day after Hutchings was selected as the Conservative candidate, a significant number of Tories thought she was the wrong choice for the seat. Hutchings, who fought and lost Eastleigh in 2010 (Chris Huhne increased his majority from 568 to 3,864), was viewed as exactly the kind of political novice that the party should avoid. Nothing that has happened since suggests this judgemenet was wrong. 

David Cameron and Conservative candidate Maria Hutchings leaflet residential homes in Eastleigh, before the imminent by-election. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

BHS is Theresa May’s big chance to reform capitalism – she’d better take it

Almost everyone is disgusted by the tale of BHS. 

Back in 2013, Theresa May gave a speech that might yet prove significant. In it, she declared: “Believing in free markets doesn’t mean we believe that anything goes.”

Capitalism wasn’t perfect, she continued: 

“Where it’s manifestly failing, where it’s losing public support, where it’s not helping to provide opportunity for all, we have to reform it.”

Three years on and just days into her premiership, May has the chance to be a reformist, thanks to one hell of an example of failing capitalism – BHS. 

The report from the Work and Pensions select committee was damning. Philip Green, the business tycoon, bought BHS and took more out than he put in. In a difficult environment, and without new investment, it began to bleed money. Green’s prize became a liability, and by 2014 he was desperate to get rid of it. He found a willing buyer, Paul Sutton, but the buyer had previously been convicted of fraud. So he sold it to Sutton’s former driver instead, for a quid. Yes, you read that right. He sold it to a crook’s driver for a quid.

This might all sound like a ludicrous but entertaining deal, if it wasn’t for the thousands of hapless BHS workers involved. One year later, the business collapsed, along with their job prospects. Not only that, but Green’s lack of attention to the pension fund meant their dreams of a comfortable retirement were now in jeopardy. 

The report called BHS “the unacceptable face of capitalism”. It concluded: 

"The truth is that a large proportion of those who have got rich or richer off the back of BHS are to blame. Sir Philip Green, Dominic Chappell and their respective directors, advisers and hangers-on are all culpable. 

“The tragedy is that those who have lost out are the ordinary employees and pensioners.”

May appears to agree. Her spokeswoman told journalists the PM would “look carefully” at policies to tackle “corporate irresponsibility”. 

She should take the opportunity.

Attempts to reshape capitalism are almost always blunted in practice. Corporations can make threats of their own. Think of Google’s sweetheart tax deals, banks’ excessive pay. Each time politicians tried to clamp down, there were threats of moving overseas. If the economy weakens in response to Brexit, the power to call the shots should tip more towards these companies. 

But this time, there will be few defenders of the BHS approach.

Firstly, the report's revelations about corporate governance damage many well-known brands, which are tarnished by association. Financial services firms will be just as keen as the public to avoid another BHS. Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said that the circumstances of the collapse of BHS were “a blight on the reputation of British business”.

Secondly, the pensions issue will not go away. Neglected by Green until it was too late, the £571m hole in the BHS pension finances is extreme. But Tom McPhail from pensions firm Hargreaves Lansdown has warned there are thousands of other defined benefit schemes struggling with deficits. In the light of BHS, May has an opportunity to take an otherwise dusty issue – protections for workplace pensions - and place it top of the agenda. 

Thirdly, the BHS scandal is wreathed in the kind of opaque company structures loathed by voters on the left and right alike. The report found the Green family used private, offshore companies to direct the flow of money away from BHS, which made it in turn hard to investigate. The report stated: “These arrangements were designed to reduce tax bills. They have also had the effect of reducing levels of corporate transparency.”

BHS may have failed as a company, but its demise has succeeded in uniting the left and right. Trade unionists want more protection for workers; City boys are worried about their reputation; patriots mourn the death of a proud British company. May has a mandate to clean up capitalism - she should seize it.