George Osborne and David Cameron speak to business leaders at the AQL centre on February 5, 2015 in Leeds. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Osborne's dramatic Manchester NHS plan is a dangerous distraction

The Chancellor's politically-motivated project undermines the goal of the national integration of health and social care. 

The most significant political story today is George Osborne's confirmation that he intends to hand Greater Manchester control of the region's £6bn health and social care budget (a quarter of total government spending in the area). Never in the history of the NHS has there been such devolution in England. The announcement was due to be made on Friday, during a visit by Osborne to the area, but the Chancellor's plans were foiled after the Manchester Evening News got hold of a draft "memorandum of understanding" between the region's councils and the Treasury. 

This being Osborne, who remains the Conservatives' chief electoral strategist, the politics are crucial. He has framed the move, which would take effect from April 2016, as part of his drive to create a "northern powerhouse", a project with the political aim of decontaminating the Conservative brand in that region (one inspired by Osborne's special adviser Neil O'Brien, the former director of Policy Exchange). The Tories are also hailing the proposed integration of health and social care spending as evidence that they are making the running on a cause that Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, has long championed. 

But if the politics are clear, the policy is not. By promising Greater Manchester control of health spending, the Conservatives have set a precedent that several other areas will want to follow (Tessa Jowell, the Labour London mayoral candidate, was swift to demand equivalent powers for the capital). In so doing, they have driven a coach and horses through Labour's proposed national integration of health and social care. As Burnham noted in his response, the resultant danger is the creation of a "two-tier" NHS which destroys the principle of a universal and comprehensive service. In the middle of the greatest funding squeeze in the NHS's history, Osborne's "devo Manc" project, which would likely necessitate another reorganisation, risks being a dangerous distraction. Under Burnham's alternative vision, health and social care would be nationally integrated (producing up to £6bn in savings) with individual local authorities and GP commissioning bodies working in harness to build new services. 

Osborne's proposal of stand-alone devolution to Manchester resembles an answer in search of a problem. Worse, it threatens to create new dysfunctions. At the last count, the region's hospitals were running a deficit of £40m. Who will pick up the bill in the event of a crisis? Though the Conservatives will protest otherwise, the move risks being the first step in the ultimate unravelling of a truly national health service. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.