Sick of this flexibility

Neal Lawson writes on GP opening hours

The government wants doctors' surgeries open more often and for longer. It has invested in the service and paid GPs more. Now it wants the public to get what it thinks the public wants - more flexible access to surgeries.

Who could argue with that? Well, let's try.

Why do we need extended surgery hours? Are we any iller or ill more frequently today than in the past? Not a bit of it. The nation is much healthier.

The real problem is that people's lives are busier and faster. They are working longer, harder and are up to their necks in all manner of additional time demands, such as undertaking home improvements, travel and helicopter parenting. So it is assumed that they want public services to fit their busy schedules.

But forcing workers - in this case doctors, nurses, receptionists and cleaners - to work extended hours merely ratchets up the problem, because these workers are not just producers; they are also consumers.

We are in a vicious spiral of market failure. If we want everywhere to be open, accessible and flexible for us 24-7, then, ultimately, we get the same done to us. We, too, will have to work more inconvenient and extended hours. We will see less of our families and friends. This proposal views the doctor's surgery as a convenience store - open all hours. Our demand for public services to be like Springfield's Kwik-E-Mart in The Simpsons is a symptom of the treadmill society.

But just because our own lives are out of control, our response should not be to wreak havoc on the lives of others.

Instead of forcing everywhere to be open at all hours of the day and night, we should try to ensure that we, too, rebalance our cash and time and start to live more structured and less pressured lives. This should be the ambition of a social democratic government: to stand up for the needs of society - not to allow market forces to flatten the space and time we have to be human.

If the customer (or, in this case, the patient) is king, the producer can only be the flexible servant. But we are all producers as well as customers. The circle cannot be squared.

What is convenient for the consumer is wholly inconvenient for the doctor, his or her staff and their families.

We are demanding of the world that it operate according to the time demands of capital, not human time. Keeping surgeries open all hours will end up making us all ill. It's not a convenience for the patient but a signal that society is becoming sicker.

Neal Lawson is chair of Compass

Neal Lawson is chair of the pressure group Compass and author of the book All Consuming.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Now it gets really dirty

Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.