An unhealthy approach to policy
James Forsyth 11:02am
To many in conservative circles, the less said about Tory health policy the better. The Tories have seemingly decided that the best they can do is neutralise the issue politically and so have shied away from doing anything other than trying to win over the British Medical Association.
To be fair, this strategy has worked tactically: the Tories are now more trusted than Labour with the NHS, denying Labour of one of its traditional sources of electoral strength. However, it also means that the Tories are, to some extent, to the left of Labour on health as Janet Daley argues in the Telegraph today. (As for the BMA, do read Stephen’s brilliant dissection of its self-interested attitudes in The Times today).
Perhaps, the biggest problem, though, is that running on their current policy platform the Tories will have no mandate to reform the health service once in government. They will have to leave it to a second term. Considering the political difficulties of changing anything to do with the NHS, there’s real doubt as to whether anything other than a first term government can do what desperately needs to be done.
Previous
David
July 7th, 2008 11:14am Report this comment"However, it also means that the Tories are, to some extent, to the left of Labour on health "
That's not a problem in itself, surely? Unless you are arguing that being Conservative is always to be to the right of wherever Labour is. Which seems rather lacking in self-confidence.
Tanuki
July 7th, 2008 11:18am Report this commentThe BMA is indeed an unreformed, old-style trade union, who wield totally inappropriate levels of power and control within the health sector.
How we overcome this "producer capture" problem I'm unsure about, apart from thinking that it needs some serious competition to be introduced to all aspects of our medical services. You don't let the pilot decide for himself where he's going to fly his plane to today; why should we let unelected coteries of doctors decide on the strategic directions of health policy?
Sceptic
July 7th, 2008 11:45am Report this commentThat the Tories are trusted on health is a function of their 20 point lead, not anything Lansley says. Get a lead like that, and obviously you're more "trusted" on major policy issues.
Marcus Cotswell
July 7th, 2008 11:56am Report this commentI'm genuinely puzzled by the belief that just because you don't spell out your policy in detail in your manifesto, you can't do anything about it once you're in government. Why would the Tories 'have to leave it to a second term'? You may recall that Bank of England independence didn't feature in Labour's 1997 manifesto. There was no suggestion as far as I recall that they didn't have a mandate to do it.
Governments are elected to govern and that means tackling the issues you're confronted with. A manifesto gives you a point of departure and a sense of direction, but the rest of the journey is up to the incoming government.
Faceless Bureaucrat
July 7th, 2008 12:24pm Report this commentJames - Marcus Cotswell has a point. Who is to say that a dynamic and forward-thinking policy on Health isn't currently being devised for swift implementation during a first Conservative term? If it had any decent ideas in it, the last thing the Conservative Health Team would want to do is flag it up for Labour to steal.
TomTom
July 7th, 2008 12:31pm Report this commentYou don't let the pilot decide for himself where he's going to fly his plane to today;
How funny. Since 95% NHS consultations are at GP level you will have to get used to being frustrated in your desire for Stalinist control....we know what people like Tanuki did over 70 years in the USSR
Verity
July 7th, 2008 12:52pm Report this commentDavid - Straw man.
Tanuki,I couldn't agree more about the BMA. The doctors' organisation in the US - imaginitively styled the AMA - is also overly powerful. Interesting.
tanuki
July 7th, 2008 1:40pm Report this commentTomTom@12:31 misunderstands my point: at the moment the doctors [through their political lobby-group the BMA] decide the strategic direction of health-policy (see their opposition to polyclinics as a perfect example). They are the fellow-travellers and supporters of the poitical centralising, controlling health-stalinists. My solution to the problem involves much greater competition and breaking the central-control ~doctor knows best so don't question him~ approach. Sure, I want some GP surgeries to remain much as they currently are. Plus I want walk-in polyclinics. Plus Tesco 'Value' and Waitrose "premium" hospitals.
Less central control. Choice. Every patient their own fundholder. What's "stalinist" about that?
J H Holloway
July 7th, 2008 3:15pm Report this commentIt's obvious, isn't it?
Labour had endless trouble with the economy, so it made the BoE 'independent'.
So the Tories will get in and make the NHS independent. The controlling board will ask for the loot and the Tories will pay it and stay at arms length.
Easy.
Wilfred
July 8th, 2008 7:47pm Report this commentIn political terms, the NHS is NEVER going to be good enough.
It is one of the great (perhaps greatest) political footballs, over which our politicians compete endlessly, with each group permanently at pains to persuade the voter that the other team is a bunch of incompetents. Round and round and round and round. Each team tries to outdo the other in its lavish promises of reform, restructuring and yet more money.
On and on and on (like my post).
The result? Rampant taxation and power for politicians.
Perhaps this is yet another potentially brilliant move from Dave (the other being the Personal Responsibility part of his Glasgow speech).
Back to top