The NHS reform bill is reckless politics

Tom Bailey

Image © UCL Conservative Society

The former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, famously called the NHS “the closest thing the English have to a religion.” This oft-quoted truism is once again doing the rounds as the furore over the Health and Social Care Bill boils on despite continuous opposition from almost everyone in the profession and large swathes of the public. Ed Miliband even had a good soundbite in PMQs when, citing supposed (and since refuted) opposition to the reforms from the Tory Reform Group, he hit Cameron with the line that ‘Even the Tories don’t trust the Tories on the NHS.’ Lawson’s judgement remains an apt assessment of how important the NHS is to the British people and the corresponding distrust of creeping privatization into this most popular institution of the welfare state. For an example of this instinctive distrust of marketisation of the NHS, last week’s Question Time saw the American business woman, Julie Meyer, jeered by the audience when she suggested that we should turn it into a ‘trillion pound British healthcare industry.’ Perhaps this response was unsurprising given how America somehow squanders away 16.2% of its GDP on healthcare (as opposed to 9.3% for the UK) and yet leaves around 50 million people, or approximately 16% of its population, without healthcare. However, I want to focus on the bad politics surrounding this bill. I lack sufficient expertise and willpower to dissect or examine the 367 page bill itself.

Firstly, this bill was not democratically mandated. The much cited Coalition agreement set out that the government would ‘stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care.’ Further to this, the Tory 2010 manifesto stated that ‘more than three years ago, David Cameron spelled out his priorities in three letters – NHS. Since then, we have consistently fought to protect the values the NHS stands for and have campaigned to defend the NHS from Labour’s cuts and reorganisations.’ Occasionally there has been an attempt by the government to claim it is not top-down but bottom-up change. However, one Tory MP argued that ‘stripping out primary care trusts (PCTs) and strategic health authorities is as top down as it comes.’ Even if certain clauses in manifestos gave hints of coming organizational changes, no radical transformation was openly offered up at the last election by either the Tories or the Lib Dems. Instead, the government is open to accusations of dishonesty and hypocrisy given the record of both the Tories and Lib Dems in critiquing overly zealous top down New Labour reforms of the NHS.

Read more of this post

Executive pay: we need to think beyond money

Five Minute Economist

Image © Herry Lawford

The main political parties have achieved near-consensus that something needs to be done about executive pay. There is an argument that Government has no role in this area, and that private firms, with all their incentives to seek greater profits are the ones best-placed to design pay schemes that work. Except that they are apparently not very good at doing just that. There is a growing body of research that shows that the link between pay and performance is simply not clear-cut. Studies by psychologists such as Dan Ariely have in fact shown that paying people to do things often makes a task less enjoyable and makes them spend less effort on it. 
So, we have a problem. If pay and performance aren’t so closely linked after all, then many firms simply aren’t properly incentivising the best people for the job to do the best job they can. It means that firms are likely to have higher costs, which feed into higher consumer prices, for no extra benefit. We aren’t putting resources to their best possible use because we aren’t getting the performance we are paying for. Read more of this post

Fair pay for interns: MPs should set an example

John Lucas

Image © Liberal Democrats

Campaigners won a partial victory this week after 100 leading companies said they will pay wages or expenses to young people on internships.   It is hoped the agreement will hasten the demise of the practice whereby children of well-connected, affluent types labour for free in return for possible paid jobs in the future.  Critics have long argued that anyone doing more than light duties on work experience should be paid and that existing customs leave many capable but less prosperous candidates unable to gain vital experience.  Deputy PM Nick Clegg apparently agrees, and welcomed the new deal.   But the group of employers most conspicuous by their absence from the agreement were MPs who, along with think-tanks, are some of the worst offenders when it comes to soliciting free labour.

Doing unpaid work for an MP is the traditional route into the world of Westminster politics, and even when controversy over this issue began in 2009 most MPs continued to advertise for unpaid interns.   Pressure group Intern Aware has been writing to MPs to warn them that under the Minimum Wage Act (1998) all employers must pay workers at least the minimum wage, whether they call them ‘interns’ or not.  But the adverts continue.      Read more of this post

The implications of Individual Voter Registration

Mary Southcott

Image © Chris Lee

The Coalition Government’s White Paper on Individual Electoral Registration (IER) claimed:

to take forward the commitment in the Coalition Agreement to speed up the move to IER and tackle electoral fraud. The current household registration system will be replaced by individual registration.  Every elector will have to register individually and provide identifying information which will be used to verify their entitlement to be included in the electoral register. Only once their application has been verified can a person be added to the register. This will help to restore trust in electoral system.

The measures set out in the paper were recommended by the Committee for Standards in Public Life back in 2007 and supported by the previous Labour government.

However, there are some worrying implications behind such laudable stated goals; namely that 10 million people could lose their right to vote if the government’s proposals come to fruition. The right to vote will once again become the preserve of the middle classes again in our supposedly inclusive parliamentary democracy. Read more of this post

Tuition Fees: Human Rights and Wrongs

Laurel

Image © Monika Ciapala

A few weeks ago the Foreign Secretary William Hague, in a speech at the Foreign Office, declared: “As a government we understand how important it is that we not only uphold our values and international law, but that we are seen to do so.

This may have come as a surprise to those who are acquainted with the UN International Covenant on Economic Cultural and Social Rights. The Covenant, signed by the UK, states in Article 13 that: “Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education.”

The UK Government appeared puzzled by this and, in a submission to the UN Committee in 2007, wondered:

whether this paragraph is intended to mean equal access to higher education by: (i) the progressive introduction of free higher education, OR (ii) the progressive introduction of free education up until the point at which higher education commences. The Government’s position on financial provision for higher education students would conflict with interpretation (i) because the Government does not provide free higher education. However, higher education is equally accessible to all in the UK on the basis that fees are not charged at the outset but paid by means of loans at a later stage in the student’s life. If interpretation (i) is correct, the Government believes other State parties (such as Australia and New Zealand) would also have problems with the implementation of Article 13(2)(c). Read more of this post

Sir Humphrey breaks up: change in Downing Street’s constitutional furniture

by Frederick Cowell

You may have missed it but God resigned last week. Don’t worry there won’t be four horsemen of the apocalypse thundering over the horizon – God in this case is the acronym of Sir Gus O’Donnell the Cabinet Secretary who after nearly six years at the head of the Civil Service is stepping down.  His resignation and replacement has marked the most significant constitutional reform the government has undertaken to date but it has fallen squarely into the category of the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it news story.

The traditional role of the Cabinet Secretary, since 1916, is three fold; firstly he (and it has always been a ‘he’)  sitting at the Prime Ministers right hand side runs the Cabinet, minuting the proceedings in long hand. Secondly he is head of the home civil service and finally, and perhaps most controversially,  he is the permanent advisor to the Office of the Prime Minister. They are not Alistair Campbell like figures they advise Prime Minsters of all stripes; Robin Butler served as Cabinet Secretary for Thatcher, Major and Blair.  The Cabinet Secretary exists to join government together and acts as a giant signal box for the Prime Minister  to convey  his instructions and orders to the Civil Service machine and is a living embodiment of the UK’s unwritten constitution. Read more of this post

Not easy, but right?

(c) Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography

Tom McGuire

‘Not easy, but right.’ These were the buzzwords in Nick Clegg’s keynote speech to end the Liberal Democrat Conference in Birmingham on Wednesday afternoon. They underline the determined mood that has gripped his party of late, as they visibly gain confidence with time and experience in office.

There is no hint of an apology for what has happened but there was a stark admission that ‘no matter how hard you work on the details of a policy, it’s no good if the perception is wrong.’ This does not work well for a party previously accused of being unfit for government and not ready for power, it all makes Clegg seem hugely naïve. Read more of this post

Parties must not underestimate Wales’ electoral influence

(c) Steve Snodgrass

Jonathan Baldie – @jonathanbaldie

Wales has always been pivotal in deciding British rulers. In past years wars have decided the occupants of the royal throne, and voter preferences have decided the occupants of Number 10. The 2015 general election to the House of Commons will be no different.

Since Margaret (now Lady) Thatcher’s premiership, Scotland has shut itself off to Conservative MPs. In spite of a similar attitude, Wales has had many of their MPs over the last two decades. Interestingly, the 5.7% swing from Labour to the Tories suggests no bucking of the trend. Read more of this post

Let’s hope for real reform

(c) UK Parliament

Tim Johnston is a Labour Party activist and recent graduate

It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of real reform going around, nor that much of it is being suggested. The Tories’ plans (which the Lib Dems are totally opposed to) of re-drawing the electoral boundaries and slashing the number of MPs from 650 to 600, is not real reform. The AV referendum, although very welcome, is not real reform.

There has been little in the way of real, ethical reform over the past several years. Perhaps the exceptions to this lack of real reform are negative too. The Terrorism Act, immigration law, a fake ‘reformed’ foreign policy (the idea that we are now a force for good as opposed to destruction) as well as reforms to education and welfare are very present: but they are not real. Read more of this post

Should we give the Lib Dems a break?

My colleague Postcode Politics argued recently that the Lib Dems should leave the coalition government. You have caused immeasurable harm to your party and your country, wrote PP. I agreed with almost every word. The Lib Dems are propping up an unelected government. They do not have enough sway around the Cabinet table to justify this situation. However, I am left feeling a bit uneasy about the whole thing. Part of me does want to say that the stick that Clegg and co are getting is a little undeserved. Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,004 other followers