Labour claims its idea of "whole-person care" can make crucial NHS savings. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour says joining up social care and health can plug the NHS budget shortfall

The Labour party says it would make savings in the NHS through joined-up services; what does this tell us about its approach to health policy in austere times?

The NHS can be the Labour party's most powerful weapon, but also its biggest stumbling block. While the party gains a great deal of warmth from the electorate for being associated with protecting the health service and its core value as being free at the point of use, and having been its founder, this also makes it vulnerable to criticism if it ever wants to so much as tweak its outlook or plans for health policy.

While the Conservative party, whose NHS reforms have been particularly controversial and unpopular, particularly among doctors and health workers, frenziedly attacks the opposition on the record of the Labour-led Welsh NHS, the Labour party has been beavering away attempting to figure out how it can maintain its reputation for being the party of the NHS while governing under austerity, if it reaches government in 2015.

The shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, who served as health secretary when Labour was last in government, has been pushing his plan for “whole-person care” for a long while. The most basic definition of this rather clunkily-labelled plan (I’ve always thought it sounds a bit like a weird euphemism for undergoing general anaesthetic), is joining up health and social care, for a more holistic approach to caring for patients throughout their lives, and to stop physical, mental and social care being in separate compartments.

Today, the shadow care minister Liz Kendall is to lay out how joining up health and social care would be used by Labour to make savings in order to fund the shortfall in the NHS budget.

Burnham and his team have long been calling the “whole-person care” idea “efficient”, as well as a better service for the individual patient. He told me in February that the policy is “actually about efficiency” and “spending money we already put into the health and care system much better than we currently do.”

Hinting at Ed Miliband’s initial reticence over the plan – there was a time during the last Labour party conference when it was widely-thought Burnham would be reshuffled – Burnham also said in my interview that he was “assuming that there’s going to be no huge amounts of money for health and social care”, and asked “how do we get much better results for people from what we’re currently putting in? Whole-person care comes from that quite hard-headed assessment of the future outlook of public spending.”

The shadow health secretary also chuckled that upon nearly elbowing Ed Balls in the face at a football match they both took their children to, the shadow chancellor gave such a scowl that a man next to them joked: "I think you’ve just lost the NHS £10bn there in the next spending review". But jokes and violence aside, it's no secret that Balls, and Miliband, have been wary about Burnham's plans, reportedly blocking his idea to hand NHS cash to councils earlier this year.

However, this is the first time Labour’s health team has said its joined-up approach will specifically make savings to plug the apparently imminent “black hole” in the NHS budget. This suggests that the policy has finally received support from Miliband and Balls – indeed, Kendall’s announcement comes a few days after the shadow chancellor ruled out an estates tax or a national insurance hike as sources of funding.

In her speech today, Kendall will say:

Huge cuts to social care are piling further pressure on local hospitals. £3.5bn has been cut from local council care budgets since 2010 and a quarter of a million fewer older and disabled people are getting vital services like home care visits, which help them get up, washed, dressed and fed.

It will be a choice between care going backwards, with fragmented services and money wasted under the Tories – or Labour's plans to fully join-up the NHS and social care so we get the best results for users and the best value for taxpayers' money.

Labour still needs to clarify exactly how this policy will go towards patching up the £2bn shortfall in the NHS budget in England next year alone predicted by health officials, and also whether it is the best approach to the costly strains of an ageing population. But it seems that what it has achieved is some agreement between those holding the purse-strings in the party and Burnham – who is said privately to support an estates tax – and his health team.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

White supremacists are embracing genetic testing - but they aren't always that keen on the results

Users of far-right site Stormfront are resorting to pseudo science and conspiracy theories when DNA tests show they aren't as "pure" as they hoped.

The field of genomics and genetics have undergone almost exponential growth in recent years. Ventures like the Human Genome Project have enabled t humanity to get a closer look at our building blocks. This has led to an explosion in genetic ancestry testingand as of 6 April 2017 23AndMe, one of the most popular commercial DNA testing websites, has genotyped roughly 2 million customers.

It is perhaps unsurprising that one of the markets for genetic testing can be found among white suprmacists desperate to prove their racial purity. But it turns out that many they may not be getting the results they want. 

Stormfront, the most prominent white nationalist website, has its own definition of those who are allowed to count themselves as white - “non-Jewish people of 100 per cent European ancestry.” But many supremacists who take genetic tests are finding out that rather than bearing "not a drop" of non-white blood, they are - like most of us a conglomerate of various kinds of DNA from all over the world including percentages from places such as sub Saharan Africa and Asia. Few are taking it well.

Dr. Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, of UCLA’s Institute for Society and Genetics and the research institute Data and Society respectively, presented a research study (currently under peer review for publication) at the American Sociological Association a week ago, analysing discussion of GAT on Stormfront forums. Panofsky, Donovan and a team of researchers narrowed down the relevant threads to about 700, with 153 users who had chosen to publish their results online. While Panofsky emphasised that it is not possible to draw many quantitative inferences, the findings of their study offer a glimpse into the white nationalist movement's response to science that doesn't their self perception. 

“The bulk of the discussion was repair talk”, says Panofsky. “Though sometimes folks who posted a problematic result were told to leave Stormfront or “drink cyanide” or whatever else, 'don’t breed', most of the talk was discussion about how to interpret the results to make the bad news go away”.

Overwhelmingly, there were two main categories of reinterpretation. Many responses dismissed GAT as flimsy science – with statements such as a “person with true white nationalist consciousness can 'see race', even if their tests indicate 'impurity'".

Other commentators employed pseudo-scientific arguments. “They often resemble the critiques that professional geneticists, biological anthropologists and social scientists, make of GAT, but through a white nationalist lens", says Panofsky. 

For instance, some commentators would look at percentages of non-European DNA and put it down to the rape of white women by non-white men in the past, or a result of conquests by Vikings of savage lands (what the rest of us might call colonialism). Panofsky likens this to the responses from “many science opponents like climate deniers or anti-vaxxers, who are actually very informed about the science, even if they interpret and critique it in idiosyncratic and motivated ways".

Some white nationalists even looked at the GAT results and suggested that discussion of 100 per cent racial purity and the "one drop" rule might even be outdated – that it might be better to look for specific genetic markets that are “reliably European”, even though geneticists might call them by a different name.

Of course, in another not totally surprising development, many of the Stormfront commentators also insisted that GAT is part of a Jewish conspiracy, “to confuse whites by sprinkling false diversity into test results".

Many of the experts in the field have admitted to queasiness about the test themselves; both how they come to their results and what they imply. There are several technical issues with GAT, such as its use of contemporary populations to make inferences about those who previously lived in different places around the world, and concerns that the diversity of reference samples used to make inferences is not fully representative of the real world. 

There are other specific complications when it comes to the supramacist enthusiasm for GAT. Some already make a tortous argument that white people are the “true people of color" by dint of greater variation in hair and eye color. By breaking up DNA into percentages (e.g. 30 per cent Danish, 20 per cent German), Panofsky says GAT can provide a further opportunity to “appropriate and colonise the discourse of diversity and multiculturalism for their own purposes". There's is also, says Panofsky, the simple issue that “we can’t rely on genetic information to turn white nationalists away from their views."

“While I think it would be nice if the lesson people would take from GAT is that white nationalism is incoherent and wrong. I think white nationalists themselves often take the exact opposite conclusion."