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.

Picture: ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left