Cameron's NHS vision embraces “decentralisation, accountability and transparency”. But it misunderstands inequality and says nothing about standards.
“Don’t be shy about the NHS” is clearly David Cameron’s New Year’s resolution. Chapter one of the his Draft Manifesto 2010 sets out “our Reform Plan for the NHS”.
Top of the in-tray for clinicians and NHS managers is sustaining recent improvements on less money: £20 billion less predicts its Chief Executive. How can NHS quality and productivity be enhanced in parallel? Short of sacking support staff, Cameron says nothing about this.
Instead, his vision embraces “decentralisation, accountability and transparency” with much more competition, and a bonfire of targets. Much of this is not new but fails to address a key question: what NHS standards will exist under the Tories? There is no concept that patients as consumers become weaker with minimum standards or targets removed, and funding squeezed. Perhaps Cameron also feels vulnerable on social justice, as he and his spinners make a big feature of a new commitment: “on public health … we will weight funding so that extra resources go to the poorest areas with the worst health outcomes”.
Focussing on outcomes and inequality is good news for the left, however. Cameron’s argument on the causes of inequality is wafer thin. A first year sociology student knows that health status depends on much more than direct health service spend: the challenge is that many solutions lie outside the NHS, linked to aspirations, educational achievement, employment, lifestyle, sense of community and housing. Hence amongst developing nations for example, the USA spends double on health services in terms of purchasing power compared to Greece, yet has lower infant mortality and life expectancy.
A wealth of research highlights these wider influences on people’s health. The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett was a seminal book of 2009, emphasising the link between unequal health and income inequality. The Department of Health has commissioned WHO advisor Michael Marmot to propose strategies to reduce health inequalities from 2010, reporting pre-election.
Cameron has now revealed his hand on the NHS, and the “small state” solution is emerging. Aggressive competition and an innate preference for tax cuts and low spending cannot sit easily with a national service driving reduced inequalities.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
7 Responses to “New decade; same message: the Tories’ manifesto for the NHS”
Bill Kristol-Balls
Slightly off topic but I do think the Tories rather overdid the Photoshop job on their new Cameron = Change (honestly) poster.
Could someone get in touch with Jo Swinson and ask her to broaden her campaign against airbrushed photos to include Dave.
Grahame Morris
RTleftfootfwd Tories manifesto for the NHS misunderstands inequality & says nothing about standards http://bit.ly/77rJkx #LabourOnYourSide
Stuart Whittingham
New decade; same message: the Tories’ manifesto for the NHS http://viigo.im/1Y6S
Letterman describes our Congress of Whores. « Callsign Snoopys Doghouse
[…] New decade; same message: the Tories’ manifesto for the NHS […]
Richard Blogger
I’ve read through the so-called Draft Manifest and I intend to cover it piece-by-piece on my blog ToryLies.
My initial reaction is that the majority are policies already implemented by the current Labour government and the rest of the policies are intended to take us back to the last century. Those policies are designed to reverse the NHS to how it was organised in 1997 than anything else. As I read the document phrases from a decade or so ago came back to me “GP fundholding”, “NHS executive”, “Patients’ Passport”…
There are some very expensive plans (for example on single-sex ward and single room accommodation) which surely cannot be implemented by an austerity government, but that does not matter since if they get elected by a lie they will still be in government for 5 years.
There are also some worrying aspects. For example responsibility for public health (and £3bn) will be taken away from existing NHS providers and handed to local authorities. Of course, local authorities are not healthcare providers so what will they do with that money? Since they are predominately Conservative controlled their natural reaction will be to use the £3bn to buy private sector solutions. In effect, if this happens, it will be a £3bn privatisation of part of the NHS. There are several other suspected privatisations in the policy, and as I said above, I will write about them in more detail on my blog.