At last the government have acknowledged something bad is happening in the NHS. With Accident and Emergency departments completely breaking down, the UK Health Security Agency has finally issued advice: if people are ill and need to go out, wear a mask. Health Secretary Steve Barclay said there is a £500m fund available so patients with nowhere to go can be discharged into the community. And now Number 10, please note not Rishi Sunak, have conceded that A&E waiting times are making for a difficult Winter but there is no crisis. "We are confident we are providing the NHS with the funding it needs, as we did throughout the pandemic, to deal with these issues" the Downing Street spox said. Tell that to striking nurses and ambulance workers. Or patients worrying whether they'll be among the estimated 500 excess deaths this week.
This is the culmination of the Tories' laissez-faire approach to public health. Since the removal of all Covid precautions, they have acted as if Covid did not exist. According to the ONS, the result in 2022 has been between 300 and 350 deaths a month with Covid on the certificate. Excess deaths are about a fifth above the five year average (excluding 2020). On hospitalisations, admissions have remained above average since the pandemic broke in March/April 2020. The Tories have left the NHS to run hot, not allowing staff breathers and recovery time between waves. The crisis has become the new normal.
Covid matters for several reasons. There are still risks of serious illness, especially for the elderly and the clinically vulnerable. This means hospitalisations and greater incidences of long Covid. The second problem is the long-term consequences of Covid. The disease is now well known, and it can - whether someone contracting it is ill or has a symptomless infection - erode the immune system, the body's ability to eliminate potentially harmful cell mutations, and increase the risks of strokes and cardiac arrest. Multiple reinfection leaves us prey to experiencing other illnesses more acutely. Such as the flu wave that is also putting thousands in hospital. What the long-term consequences this will have on the developing bodies of children is unknown. Instead, what messaging there has been is little better than vibes, suggesting infection gives us residual immunity and protection, as if Covid is a flu strain or a bout of measles. Instead of pretending everything is okay, the public health message should be clear about the risks of infection. It should recommend masks in crowded public places, especially enclosed spaces, for everyone - not just those who are ill. N95 masks should have been publicly procured and made freely available. The government could have rolled out its last vaccination booster programme to the under 50s. It could have undertaken a programme of air filtration fittings and UV light disinfection in public buildings. Instead, they did nothing.
The Covid crisis came on top of another crisis in the NHS. Since the Tories took office 13 years ago, hospital beds have fallen, and adult social care cut to the bone just as the ageing population were making greater demands of it. Successive governments deliberately let health spending lag behind demand, ensuring there was no slack in the system and making it look like the NHS was fundamentally broken. This was exacerbated by their further marketisation of the NHS, and an apparent enthusiasm to "take on" the medical professions. Nurses and ambulance workers are in the firing line now, but before them it was junior doctors and the British Medical Association.
What is the Tories game, then? Evidently, the Prime Minister and his lackeys don't care about patients and burned out NHS staff otherwise they'd have done something about it. There are two intertwined strategies at play. The first, which goes back to the Coalition years, is the effort at effectively depoliticising politics. This takes the shape of defunding multiple public institutions as well as the NHS, run it down to a level of decrepitude, and thereby reduce the state's capacity to do anything. This lowers people's expectations so they become cynical and sceptical about whether things can get any better, and the Tories - presenting this as inevitable and natural - escape (they hope) responsibility, or at least allows them to frame politics in terms of reduced expectations.
The second is the residualisation of the NHS. When people talk about the privatisation of the NHS, what is often meant is the introduction of charges and the removal of the free-at-the-point-of-use principle. The Tories would only ever do this around the edges, because they know how politically toxic treatment-by-payment would be for them. Especially for a party overly dependent on a shrinking, elderly voter base. But they are also keen on getting more private capital into the NHS. We saw how Covid procurement was a free-for-all for Tory donors (as well as, directly, some Tories). They would like nothing better than a guaranteed market, underwritten by state money. An arrangement that the pharmaceutical giants have enjoyed since the NHS's foundation. However, they want to run the NHS down to the point where those with means opt out and go for private medicine, strengthening markets there as well as generating new opportunities for medical insurance. Which they and their donors can also do well from. And it appears Labour's shadow health secretary is not that ill-disposed to some aspects of this.
The crisis in the NHS has been engineered through over a decade of neglect, and exacerbated by a pandemic the Tories took political advantage of. The government will have to be forced to intervene, be it by a bigger turnout for the next round of strikes, mass demonstrations, Tory MP post bags brimming over with complaints, and jittery backbenchers applying pressure on the (still weak) Sunak administration. The Prime Minister and the Health Secretary aren't going to do anything simply because something "must" be done. As far as they're concerned, the misery and suffering is their programme running according to plan.
Image Credit
7 comments:
As I’ve just been bumped off the list for hip ops for the third time, I’ve become sensitised to the use of the term “elective”. It simply means that emergency cases are dealt with first, not that I’ve decided to have an operation rather than not. Nose jobs are elective, hips, alas, are not.
What surprises me is that I didn’t see anything about death rates under the Tories’ austerity and politics until last month, when the calculation appeared that the majority for Brexit in 2016 had died off. In my doctors’ surgery while waiting at 7.45 am to make an appoint when the list opens at 8.00 am, behind me there was a seething mass of white-haired patients all muttering about how awful this was. It took quite an effort not shout out,
“If you voted Tory, this is what you voted for.”, since of of the two wards locally returned a Tory councillor.
Nobody seems to have calculated that first austerity, and now the insipid reaction to Covid, is likely to have killed proportionately more over 60’s, which as we know, are disproportionately likely to vote Tory. Not so much cutting off the branch on which your sitting, but cutting it up and throwing it on the fire.
«run the NHS down to the point where those with means opt out and go for private medicine, strengthening markets there as well as generating new opportunities for medical insurance.»
Obama pointed out helpfully that the huge overheads of private health insurance (just like private pensions) is a huge redistributive to generate well-paying "bullshit" jobs pushing papers (as well as the attendant profit margins):
«“Everybody who supports single-payer healthcare says, ‘Look at all this money we would be saving from insurance and paperwork.’ That represents 1 million, 2 million, 3 million jobs of people who are working at Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser or other places. What are we doing with them? Where are we employing them?”»
«first austerity, and now the insipid reaction to Covid, is likely to have killed proportionately more over 60’s, which as we know, are disproportionately likely to vote Tory. Not so much cutting off the branch on which your sitting, but cutting it up and throwing it on the fire.»
They are not stupid! Conservative voting depends on being an incumbent, not on being old; it just so happens that most who have some valuable incumbency are older. So I think that these factors matter:
* What matters is not the number of Conservative voters, but of thatcherite voters. If all thatcherite voters who vote Conservative were to switch to vote LibDem, nothing much would change (and probably the LibDems would become eurosceptic to keep those votes).
* Lower class (propertyless or with worthless properties in "rust belt" areas) oldies are less likely to vote Conservative than incumbents from the middle class and upper class oldies, and also to to die younger than middle and upper class oldies.
* For incumbent (that largely means with properties in good areas) middle and upper class oldies, their death does not reduce the number of Conservative voters, because usually they have heirs (this is a factor that our blogger seems to misunderstimate).
What reduces the number of thatcherite voters is a reduction in the number of incumbencies, that is mostly an increase in the concentration of property ownership in good areas, which does happen because of the increasing difficulty of becoming a first-time buyer of property, as first-time buyers are increasingly priced-out.
But inheritance is a big counter to that, because a property can get inherited as such, and thus the number of thatcherite voters remains constant, or because the property gets sold, the amount gets split among the heirs, who then have the cash for a deposit on their own first-time purchase. This tends to happen late in life, so the number of property owners still declines, but much more slowly than without inheritance.
As to the Conservative party, it will endure: if the number of thatcherite voters dwindles, they may abandon thatcherism and go back to one-nationism or forward to something else to win the votes to protect the interests of incumbents of most types. Winners do whatever it takes (as long as it protects the interests of incumbents).
«they want to run the NHS down to the point where those with means opt out and go for private medicine, strengthening markets there as well as generating new opportunities for medical insurance.»
Another classic quote on this, not just Obama:
"Kenneth Clarke: I had a lot of views, but they didn't coincide with No 10's", 2014-07-19, "The Observer"
«His first challenge at health was heading off Thatcher, who "wanted to go to the American system", he reveals. "I had ferocious rows with her about it. She wanted compulsory insurance, with the state paying the premiums for the less well-off.
I thought that was a disaster. The American system is hopeless … dreadful."
He prevailed on her to take a different route by introducing more competition into the NHS. It became known – in a phrase he didn't like – as "the internal market". Ever since then, successive governments have pushed in broadly the same direction.»
I could have been even worse! :-(
Er Blissex, missed the point that if anybody is “stupid” here, it’s that I suspect that Tory party has policies kill more of their own supporters than any other party.
«missed the point [...] that Tory party has policies kill more of their own supporters than any other party»
And my comment on that was that it does not matter politically, because any old thatcherite voters that the Conservatives manage to kill is replaced by one or more slightly less old thatcherite voter (“their death does not reduce the number of Conservative voters, because usually they have heirs”), their inheritors.
Consider COVID-19: the refusal of the Conservatives and LibDems and New, New Labour to do "zero-COVID" TTI resulted in the early deaths of dozens of thousands of thatcherite oldies, but this worked well for the Conservatives, because every time a thatcherite 70-80 year old died of COVID-19, her 50-60 year old heir(s) became thatcherites if they were not already. I guess that many of those heirs were quite relieved that they did not have to wait another 10-15 years to get their inheritance. Ka-ching!
«any old thatcherite voters that the Conservatives manage to kill is replaced by one or more slightly less old thatcherite voter»
To point out the obvious, tory voters kept voting for the Conservatives, New Labour or LibDems not because they love them, or for Thatcher, Blair, Clegg, Johnson not because they respect them, but because they kept delivering to their voters (and sponsors) massive asset profits redistributed from the lower classes.
Consider the blatant case of 2019: at least 1/3 of Conservative voters are/were "Remainers", yet the vast majority of them voted for "Get Brexit Done" Johnson, and there was no huge loss of Conservative votes to right-wing "Remain" parties like ChangeUK or LibDems, because The Conservatives and Johnson kept delivering huge profits to Conservative voters at the expense of the lower classes, and that was what mattered to Conservative voters, far more than "Remain" (while a larger percentage of "Leavers" are more ideological).
Many votes for the 3 major thatcherite parties are *transactional*, and they only last as long their governments keep delivering huge upward redistribution to their voters, directly or indirectly via inheritance.
Post a Comment