Is the NHS really safe in Tory hands?

First topic message reminder :

Here is a news item from North Yorkshire which never made it onto the national headlines

A York-based practice has written to its patients offering them a range of minor treatments privately, claiming they are not funded by the local NHS.

Doctors' leaders said this could be the start of a worrying trend due to the squeeze on finances and NHS overhaul.

The letter, seen by the BBC, said local health chiefs had stopped funding a range of services, but added they could still have them done privately at a number of clinics, including one owned by the practice.

These included removing skin tags from £56.30 to treating benign tumours for £243.20.

Dr Richard Vautrey, of the British Medical Association, added: "The dire finances of many trusts means that many more NHS treatments are likely to become unavailable in the future".

In both English and Scottish Law that "promise" probably comprises a False Bill of Sale.
But who're you gonna sue?

A great many 'somethings' have been done - hence the mess we find ourselves in

In today's Sunday Times, Jeremy (no, the other one this time) explains that the NHS must be scrapped completely and come up with something "that actually works". (As opposed to swanning around the world upsetting the natives, one supposes.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he

You would need to have inexhaustible optimism to believe that the NHS is "safe in Tory hands".  They have been resisting socialized medical provision since 1945, and the Health Secretary has written a book describing how he proposes to replace it with private health insurance.  The amount of money involved makes an attractive honey-pot for speculators to buzz around.  Today's newspaper headline is typical:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Logic suggests there may well be facts supporting the allegations of wasted money within the  NHS.  In such a sprawling and complicated organization it is unrealistic to imagine that everything is always going to be perfect.  Some waste is built-in for the security of all patients, e.g. by the destruction of drugs prescribed but not actually used.  Would anyone be comfortable with re-cycled medicines?  Every year thousands of patients simply fail to turn up for treatment, or fail to pursue a course of action recommended by Doctors.  It all represents waste, but whether it's avoidable waste may never be established.

Jeremy Hunt splashes £44,000 taxpayers' cash on a new toilet for his office

Hunt - the man demanding £22 billion in NHS cuts - has had a new £44,000 toilet and shower installed in his penthouse office. The cash has been splashed on a bathroom boasting floor-to-ceiling slate tiles and sensor-activated lights at the Department of Health’s new offices. The multi-millionaire health secretary’s 15ft by 8ft suite has lava tiles, vanity mirrors, recessed lighting, a designer toilet and a power shower. Its lighting system has been wired with sensors which automatically switch on when he walks in.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Meanwhile:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Purely as a matter of interest does anyone really think that the NHS and associated services are, and will be in the future, sustainable as free to all, tax paid services - regardless of which Government is in power.
I would be interested to hear the How? and Why? The population growth, improvements in treatments, medicines, prosthetics and general extention of living ages, would have astounded the people who set up the NHS.
Taxing the rich harder, higher Corporation tax, and the new (2018) off-shore tax evasion law, will not bring in sufficient to cover essential services - which include Police, Fire and defence and pensions. In a decade we will have more automation, more unemployed. New factories will employ modern methods, with less staff. All this will lead to less income tax. And if you die before the age of 100 the State will send your Tax forms - care of St Peter. Well, if you're going that way.

As one widower wrote about his deceased haridan wife

If she has gone to realms above
Farewell to peace and heavenly love
But if she's sought the lower level
God have mercy on the Devil.

trevorw2539 wrote:Purely as a matter of interest does anyone really think that the NHS and associated services are, and will be in the future, sustainable as free to all, tax paid services - regardless of which Government is in power.
I would be interested to hear the How? and Why? ....

Well that's certainly what Government would have us believe. "You can't have it because we can't afford it, go and play on the motorway!"

The cold hard reality is that there is no sensible alternative to a service which curates the Nation's health, otherwise you cut off your nose because you're suffering from 'flu. Doctors speak in an unflattering way of "The health of the herd." Bluntly, they're referring to the fact that money in the bank won't save you if there should be a return to the bad old days of The Plague/Black Death/Cholera/Typhoid/Pox/Tuberculosis/high infant mortality etcetera, etc.

How can we afford it? By efficient collection of tax liability under existing Law. Why? Make sure you are fit, if you live under the rule "Survival of the fittest."

How can we afford it? By efficient collection of tax liability under existing Law. Why? Make sure you are fit, if you live under the rule "Survival of the fittest."


If we collected ALL tax liability is it unlikely that this country could afford the NHS as it is. There are so many demands made on this country's tax collection. The demands exceed the income. 3 pence in the pound on ALL tax brackets is needed just to bring the NHS up to standard by 2020. How many people are prepared to pay an extra 3 pence? From then on the demand will increase year by year with a rising ageing population. There is coming a day when other means of taxation will be needed.

Is the NHS really safe in Tory hands?

Well there's always wringing-hands as an alternative.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

often wrong wrote:Well there's always wringing-hands as an alternative.

True, but I don't think that is likely to help.

There are only 3 things we can do. Live within our means. Borrow more money. Or use money from private sources. This country will never earn enough to maintain services as it has in the past. IMHO Brexit will do irreparable harm to the British Economy and we are beginning to see that already. We want trade agreements with countries who are already in trade blocks. And many countries will not trade with us to their detriment. This country is no longer British owned - and some of the foreign companies who trade through the City are already looking for offices elsewhere. Depending on Brexit conditions the British Bulldog is about to lose its teeth.

trevorw2539. Firstly, I'd like to say how good it is to see you posting here these days - and it's good to see my tulips again!

Apart from the poor young lady who died, at least 19 people were injured in Charlottesville at the weekend, after which crowdfunding has been taking place to pay for their medical treatment. I hope we never get to that situation, but if the Tories stay in power long enough we probably will.

There are basically two systems of government in Western democracies – the American free market way and the European social democratic model. In general terms, Labour governments have tended to move us closer to the latter, while Tory governments, especially since Thatcher changed the Conservatives into right-wing radicals, have favoured the former. That’s really what Brexit is all about, and why May rushed off to hold hands with the odious Trump within a week of his inauguration.

State-provided healthcare is very much a part of what social democracy is all about, which is why Trump and his cronies so hate Obamacare. It’s also why the Tories voted against the establishment of the NHS in 1948, provoking Nye Bevan into calling them “lower than vermin”. Tory Oliver Letwin let slip in 2005 that there would be no NHS after five years of a majority Tory government. The present health secretary, who can find tens of thousands to squander on a luxury office bathroom for himself, was the co-author of a pamphlet advocating the destruction of the NHS. I’m afraid that putting Tories in charge of our health is about as wise as putting King Herod in charge of a crèche.

You make some valid points about the effects of Brexit being damaging, and about us living longer and developments in medicine and procedures being very expensive. However, an increasing population shouldn’t matter, because it should mean more people contributing the taxes and national insurance to pay for it. After the basic essentials of food, clothing and shelter, health and education should be the next most important considerations of the government of the sixth richest country in the world. It’s not a question of we can’t afford such essentials, we must. What’s the point of spending billions on nuclear weapons (which only an insane person would ever use) - supposedly to defend the population of this country - if we say we can’t provide them with the basic ‘defence’ against ill-health?

The government spends about £800 billion every year and it can always find money when it wants to – to bribe the DUP, to renovate Buckingham Palace, to give MPs and royals a whopping pay rise, to fund Liam Fox’s pointless jaunts around the world, even to pay for Jeremy Hunt’s bathroom. But it spends a smaller percentage of our GDP on health than countries such as France and Germany. Where there’s a will there’s a way, but when it comes to the NHS, the Tory will is to destroy it by stealth.

Ivan. This is brief and to the point as I am busy at the moment.

Buckingham Palace belongs to the Nation. Should the tenant be responsible for its repair? It's well known that the Queen would be happy to move out to a smaller property, but the State and tradition requires her to live there. I would be quite happy to see a different type of Monarchy - with a young 'king'. Dutch Style perhaps.

Bribing the DUP, however distasteful, has given us a government to deal with Brexit. Leaving the EU - IMO - is a mistake Britain will regret. But the public wanted it.

The other points could be attributed to past members of all parties.

I was not aware the Tories voted against the formation of the NHS. I thought some members simply tabled an amendment to protect bodies already dealing with hospitals - Charities - and City councils etc. There was simply no point in voting against the vast majority Labour had. And I thought Nye Bevan's quote referred to the way the Tories had treated the poor in the preceding decade. Not about the NHS bill.

The fact we are living longer means, not so much increase in taxes, but the increase in paying pensions for a longer time.

The German and French systems of 'NHS' require insurance contributions, in Germany - everyone - worker or not. Even then I think users are required to pay a fee in consultation - then receive a large percentage in refund. Fees exempt for certain long term or terminal illness. I think this is true, unless things have changed in recent years.

Will come back on the 6th richest country subject.

trevorw2539 wrote:I was not aware the Tories voted against the formation of the NHS....And I thought Nye Bevan's quote referred to the way the Tories had treated the poor in the preceding decade. Not about the NHS bill.

This was the speech which Bevan made on 3 July 1948, two days before the NHS came into being:-

“No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through. But, I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying now. Do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman. But I warn you they have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse than they were.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to this source, that speech was attacking the Tories for opposing the NHS:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That same source also says the Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including on both the Second and Third reading.

This source confirms Tory opposition to the NHS:-

"In 1945, the new Labour government came in on a manifesto that promised a revolution in health care. The job of health minister had been a minor one, below cabinet rank, but now it was filled by a major political player, Aneurin Bevan, the adored, charismatic leader of the Labour left. His stated ambition was to build a health service based on four principles: it was to be free at the point of use, available to everyone who needed it, paid for out of general taxation, and used responsibly.

All very uncontroversial, it might seem now, especially given the dire state of the health service at the time. Yet there was furious opposition from consultants, doctors, and the Conservative Party. One of the fears underlying the Conservatives' opposition to the NHS was that when treatment was free, the feckless poor would rush in to strip the chemist shops of every pill on the shelves, then head for the dentists' surgeries to have their mouths filled with gold and silver."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One can also rely upon common sense to realise what they've been up to all this time.

Ivan wrote:

trevorw2539 wrote:I was not aware the Tories voted against the formation of the NHS....And I thought Nye Bevan's quote referred to the way the Tories had treated the poor in the preceding decade. Not about the NHS bill.

This was the speech which Bevan made on 3 July 1948, two days before the NHS came into being:-

“No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through. But, I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying now. Do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman. But I warn you they have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse than they were.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to this source, that speech was attacking the Tories for opposing the NHS:-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That same source also says the Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including on both the Second and Third reading.

This source confirms Tory opposition to the NHS:-

"In 1945, the new Labour government came in on a manifesto that promised a revolution in health care. The job of health minister had been a minor one, below cabinet rank, but now it was filled by a major political player, Aneurin Bevan, the adored, charismatic leader of the Labour left. His stated ambition was to build a health service based on four principles: it was to be free at the point of use, available to everyone who needed it, paid for out of general taxation, and used responsibly.

All very uncontroversial, it might seem now, especially given the dire state of the health service at the time. Yet there was furious opposition from consultants, doctors, and the Conservative Party. One of the fears underlying the Conservatives' opposition to the NHS was that when treatment was free, the feckless poor would rush in to strip the chemist shops of every pill on the shelves, then head for the dentists' surgeries to have their mouths filled with gold and silver."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've read most of the above.

Post-war consensus

In the years immediately after the Second World War there was a period in British politics now known as the 'post-war consensus'. Historians use this term because for the most part, the major political parties agreed on the country's main priorities and generally co-operated in trying to achieve them. Top of the list was post-war recovery, but another priority was the welfare of the people, directly involving the National Health Service (NHS).

Another reason why there was comparatively little political dispute over the welfare programme of 1945-1951 was that political dissent would have had little effect due to the huge majority the Labour government held in parliament........
Despite the apparent consensus, opposition to the establishment of the National Health Service (NHS) existed. Many groups, including charities, churches and local authorities didn't want the government taking control of hospitals. There was a particularly bitter battle with the London County Council over the control of hospitals in the capital.

The Cabinet Papers from the National Archives

The fact is that all three parties had a form of NHS in their 1945 manifesto.

Churchill's Tory Party was signed up to an NHS service, so were the Liberals. So an NHS service of some kind was inevitable. Labours NHS service came into being because of their vast government majority.

Possibly the main significance of that "vast government majority" is that it was a one-off.
Why did the British electorate effectively fall out of love with Labour for 47 years? Was it because they wasted the post-war assistance from the USA on trying to sustain The British Empire?

Why did the British electorate effectively fall out of love with Labour for 47 years?

Did it? More people voted Labour when it lost in 1951 than when it won by a landslide in 1945, but thanks to our quirky FPTP voting system, the Tories won the most seats. Labour under Harold Wilson won four of the five general elections between 1964 and 1974, including by a 96-seat majority in 1966. By 1979, both Labour and the Tories had spent 17 years in office since 1945.

If the electorate did “fall out of love” with Labour, I would suggest it was partly because many people expected post-war rationing to end more quickly than it did, and because of divisions in the party over the nuclear deterrent (some things never change). Then we had the economic upturn of the late 1950s in many countries which had been ravaged by World War Two (the ‘Wirtschaftswunder’, as it was called in Germany). No doubt many of those who were becoming more prosperous and had the “I’m all right, Jack” mentality saw less need for the state to help anyone.

For most of those post-war years up to 1979, there was something of a social democratic consensus, or ‘Butskellism’ as it was known. And even though they had voted against the establishment of the NHS, once back in power the Tories did nothing to dismantle it, so most voters probably thought it was safe in their hands. Then the world changed in 1979-80, with the arrival of Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the USA. Cabinet papers released under the 30-year rule revealed that Thatcher wanted to privatise the NHS, but she accepted that to do so would be politically disastrous. Since 2010, the Tories have proceeded to privatise the NHS by stealth, as Stephen Hawking has reminded us only today.

Ivan wrote:f the electorate did “fall out of love” with Labour, I would suggest it was partly because many people expected post-war rationing to end more quickly than it did, and because of divisions in the party over the nuclear deterrent (some things never change). Then we had the economic upturn of the late 1950s in many countries which had been ravaged by World War Two (the ‘Wirtschaftswunder’, as it was called in Germany). No doubt many of those who were becoming more prosperous and had the “I’m all right, Jack” mentality saw less need for the state to help anyone.

We had had 20+ years difficult years (1930-1950+) where things were not easy after the 'Crash' which saw the US call on its foreign debtors for payment, and they, in turn, called on their debtors leaving many countries struggling. With the money from the US and Canada we were able to survive. Things gradually
improved and the country and people felt, after all the hardship they had suffered, and the improvements in their finances you are right about feeling more independent. What they didn't realise was that we were trying to live as we had, trade wise, industrially and economically as we had before the war. And the War had changed things considerably. Trade with the Commonwealth and other countries diminished considerably as they struggled to rebuild. Industry failed to modernise etc. France and Germany sought to reinvest in more modern ways and build co-operation. It took our politicians years to realise the situation and join the CM - partly thanks to De Gaulle.
The fact is that many people are economically au faux when it comes to household economics, but not so with national economics. I hear old folks - ouch, I'm 78 - say 'I voted against joining the CM' and 'I remember the good old days'. Good days for individuals - but not for the economy.
I cringe when I hear people say 'we are the 6th richest country in the world'. We may be rich on paper, we may have vast assets, but all this is meaningless unless those assets are realisable. The Wall Street Crash should remind us of this. Millions of homes repossessed with virtually no-one to buy. Millions left with debts where equity did not cover payments owed. Millionaires who lost all their assets in one day.
Currently we have many rich people, entrepreneurs who are rich, and a lot of their money invested in enterprises, investments etc. But to realise these assets may not be so easy and lead to unforeseen consequences. Such as being sold to foreign investors - as much of our industry is now. We don't own them and they could just as easily move to the EU.

I have no objection to making the rich pay what is due, and a little more.
We can raise taxes for the rich, raise corporation tax, tax those who use safe havens (Sept. 2018) but will that cover all that we need. The country is producing billions of £s per month less than we require. Will the extra tax cover it all. There is a growing need for the NHS. This will continue to grow beyond the ability of the State to provide. More money will be needed for Pensions, emergency services, defence.
Currently this country is in a cleft stick. People/nations are reluctant to invest because of Brexit. Financial institutions are at the mercy of foreign investors - as when the vote to Brexit came these investors withdrew billions. So much so the Companies had to restrict the amount withdraw due to lack of 'cash' flow.

Oh crikey. I'm rambling.

Since 1945, the British electorate has chosen a Labour government to lead us for 30 years, and a Tory government for the remaining 42. Under the FPTP voting system. Neither side has facilitated a change to Proportional Representation, and Brexit looks like occupying most of Westminster's time for the foreseeable future, so it isn't going to change.

The system is clapped-out. "Unfit for purpose." But we have only ourselves to blame for perpetuating it, obviously. It's facile complaining about a faceless "them" when the votes are ours.

The one constant over 67 years has been the implacable opposition of most of the Popular Press to the Labour Party and Socialism throughout. So the only question that really matters is whether anything can be done about that.

While I deplore the hike in business rates overall, the above is surely misleading. I believe that only about a 1/4 of all private hospitals qualify for status of Charity Institutions. There is also a move by some NHS Trusts to claim the same status. You can't be a charity and make profits for private individual investors as far as I am aware. So far this has been turned down by councils but I suspect (only my opinion) this will go to the courts eventually.
I'm not an expert on this subject so I may not be entirely correct.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Times carries a report on health inequality which claims British people's life expectancy has stalled in comparison to other EU countries.

(Health Secretary Jeremy *unt may say it's a problem inherited from the previous administration, or all down to Professor Hawking anyway.)

Safe in their hands? After nearly seven and a half years of their most recent mismanagement of the service, do we need to ask?  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When being questioned about the state of NHS on the Andrew Marr show this morning Hunt made an interesting comment.......'Theresa May's vision of the NHS'.....Note it was not The Cabinets or Governments vision not even the Tory Party's Vision, just May's vision.....

Tory ministers are not only keeping the fabled "clear blue water" between themselves and Labour - but also between themselves and their own Prime Minister, who is being hung out to dry in the wind.

What a shower!

'The buck stops here' said a sign which US President Harry Truman displayed on his desk in the 1940s. How times have changed! The useless, malicious and incompetent Theresa May knows that the NHS has been so starved of adequate funds by her rancid government that it's bound to have a crisis this winter, so she's blaming its chief executive, Simon Stevens, in advance for anything that goes wrong......

Theresa May tells NHS boss he will be accountable for winter performance

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nor should we forget that it was the Lib-Dems, in coalition with the Tories, who allowed the government to shed ministerial responsibility for the NHS.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It provides for the most extensive reorganisation of the structure of the National Health Service in England to date. It removed responsibility for the health of citizens from the Secretary of State for Health, which the post had carried since the inception of the NHS in 1948.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"I" for irony on today's best front-page.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]