The FT has reported that:
Hospitals in England are becoming increasingly dependent on short-term handouts to maintain day-to-day services, putting a question mark over the long-term sustainability of the National Health Service, parliament's spending watchdog said on Wednesday.
A National Audit Office report also suggested that capital funding shortfalls at hospitals and other parts of the NHS could be putting patient safety at risk.
The findings underline the scale of the task facing prime minister Boris Johnson, who has made the NHS his number one political priority and trumpeted “record” sums going into the service.
Superficially this appears to be yet another of those ‘NHS in crisis' articles that are a feature of this time of the year. And, of course, that might just be true. If we had a government truly committed to the NHS then everyone could presume that this story simply reflects the ever increasing demand on the NHS of an ageing and growing population who expect the the best care that is available from modern medicine and simply move on.
But that is not the sort of government we have. We have a government that believes in balancing its budget, however irrational that might be.
And it has many exponents of the ‘small state' within it.
The prime minister has in addition, without either rhyme nor reason, demanded that all departments find 5% of spending that they can cut.
And worse, we know that this is a government made up of many people who are dedicated to privatisation.
Add all that up and, not unreasonably I read a story like this and then, I believe wholly appropriately, think it is a very useful piece that the Cabinet Office is delighted to note as evidence that what the NHS needs is a bout of private capital so that all the easy bits on which a rate of return can be guaranteed by employing staff exclusively trained by the state can be delivered by chums from US healthcare corporations with a nice fat profit margin being earned.
Of course I may be wrong.
And of course Johnson has sworn this will never happen.
But then, he also says he's dedicated to a free press. And even the Daily Mail no longer believes him on that. So why believe him on anything else?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Unfortunately, I don’t think you are wrong. Currently the PM may be lord of all he surveys by virtue of the “elective dictatorship” he enjoys via a thumping Commons majority. But he is trying to marshall three over-lapping segments of the electorate represented by his MPs that are frequently in conflict. In contrast to most centre-right or right-wing parties in the other advanced European economies he has been able to absorb voters supporting populist, illiberal economic nationalism in to the Tory ranks. This segment includes right-wing Tory voters, many voters who temporarily supported UKIP and then the Brexit party and it also includes many traditional Labour supporters. Then he has to contend with out and out ‘free-marketeers’ and, finally, he has swathes of MPs representing traditional Tory voters who dislike extremes and favour a mixed economy that protects their economic interests.
Each of the three groups of MPs representing these segments of the electorate has the potential to form a coherent ‘awkward squad’ that could deprive him of his majority. And factions within these groups could coalesce on specific issues. Currently, the ERG is the most organised faction that could cause him grief and that explains the chest-thumping and willy-waving on future negotiations with the EU. But above and beyond this on the domestic front he must throw red meat to the populist nationalist supporters in the form of higher spending and to the free-marketeers in the form of regulation shredding and privatisation opportunities, while all the time conveying the impression of maintaining fiscal discipline to traditional Tory voters.
It will be a genuine three-ring circus and Scotland and Northern Ireland won’t really impact on the performance which will be driven totally by the lust for power. Inevitably some wheels will come off and nemesis always follows hubris, but I suspect and fear it’s a performance that will be sustained for quite some time. And he has nothing to fear from Labour.
“We have a government that believes in balancing its budget, however irrational that might be.”
No. I don’t think so. We have government that PRETENDS its objective is to balance the budget. The deficit ‘justifies’ austerity measures and the bulk of the population (and apparently most of the political class, and media commentators) believes a) that the deficit is a problem and b) that austerity measures can improve the balance.
And we know damn fine the NHS privatisation is set to continue or there will be no US trade deal. We’ve known that since Theresa May said so (or might as well have done because she refused to deny it).
You cynic!!!!
Ambrose Bierce reckoned a cynic is a person whose faulty vision allows him to see things as they are not as they are supposed to be. Hence the Scythian practice of gouging out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision.
Take it as a compliment then !
“Take it as a compliment then !”
In this case I will, thankyou.
But I’m also rather taken with Caitlin Moran’s take on cynicism, and I tend to fluctuate between the two (three I suppose if I include Wilde’s ‘price of everything and value of nothing’)
Moran says “Cynicism is like a suit of armour. It protects you from life’s knock, but you can’t grow in a suit of armour and you can’t dance.”
I like that. On ‘sunny’ days I like it a lot.
Apparently a female caller to James O’Brien’s LBC radio programme recently said that she voted for the Tories because Boris Johnson ‘liked’ foodbanks and Jeremy Corbyn said he’d get rid of them. Said caller relies on foodbanks. A poorly informed member of the electorate who acted entirely against her own best interests. A ‘turkey voting for Christmas’.
Royd says:
“…. she voted for the Tories because Boris Johnson ‘liked’ foodbanks and Jeremy Corbyn said he’d get rid of them.”
This is one of the eternal political paradoxes. Boris Johnson is promising lots of hospitals and nurses (which may or may not materialise) …in an ideal world he’d be promising better health provisions to make them less needed.
Likewise thousands of extra police rather than measures to address criminality.
The nearest we got to an alternative approach was Blair’s ‘Tough on Crime. Tough on the causes of crime.’ I don’t think it was indicative of effective policy initiatives beyond its appeal as a soundbite…(?) But then Tony Blair’s manipulative insincerity is legendary Right down to what Rory Bremner astutely spotted as his ‘sincere eyebrows’ 🙂