Forum Topic

Arthur,That is a dishonest answer as you well know.  Anyone with any knowledge of NHS finances knows that the SaHF programme is being driven by the Nicholson challenge – a programme put in place in 2009 by the then Labour Secretary of Health, Andrew Burnham.  It is designed to take out £20 billion in efficiencies and put it back into new services in order that the NHS can deal with new demand within a flat real terms budget.  It is quite easy to prove that this is Labour’s policy – they wrote it down on page 4:3 of their 2010 manifesto:This is the Nicholson Challenge in black and white in the Labour manifesto.  It easy is to show too that this is the driver for Shaping a Healthier Future.  Go to page 17 of the consultation document where it says:So Labour’s own policy has led directly to NHS NWL needing to find £1 billion of savings in North West London and hence this programme.  Now you might well say that the Conservatives didn’t have to keep Labour’s policy and that is a fair criticism.  I might add though that Labour isn’t proposing to find £20 billion to make Nicholson go away and that this sum is not far short of all council tax collected every year or all business rates collected every year.  It is a truly large sum of money.  What is clear though is that if Labour had been in power the overall financial settlement for the NHS would not have been any better, indeed it might have been worse.  SaHF would not have looked very different under a Labour government as it would have been the same set of managers working to the same set of constraints.

Phil Taylor ● 4201d

Arthur,The local Conservatives felt that these changes made too large a change that affected our Borough too sharply so we were against them, as were all the political parties locally.  We still are but the process has run its course and the only relief that we have had through this whole process is the Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt saying that Ealing and Charing Cross will retain A&Es.  The courts refused to overturn the plan as did the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.  We have had no promises whatsoever from Labour.  Andy Burnham could make a promise to change the plan.  Silence.  Julian Bell is a powerful man in his party but he can offer nothing except attempts to pin his own party's policy on the Conservatives.  He make no specific pledges beyond "fighting" which is meaningless positioning.  The reality is that Labour will promise nothing and will do nothing to change SaHF.  All they will do is try to blame the negatives of SaHF on the Conservatives and claim the positives for themselves.  The inconvenient fact Arthur is that the doctors are not obviously revolting.  They seem to be getting on with making the proposals work.  The doctors in charge of SaHF say that the scheme they propose will lead to better results overall.  You know that is their claim.  It is a case now of time will tell.  Will the Labour/Union scaremongers be proved right?  I suspect not.  As you know the same story would have played out under a Labour government because Nicholson was already in Labour's plans and spelled out on page 4:3 of Labour's manifesto to ensure that they had cover to proceed.  Labour has been truly mendacious on this topic. 

Phil Taylor ● 4201d

Jean,I am sorry to say that some of Phil's detailed reply misses the target. When he was a councillor his party supported the protest against the local NHS changes. Then changed its mind. Now unfettered he suggests that "the doctors think the proposals will lead to better outcomes". Jeremy Hunt is threatening these same doctors presumably because he does not trust them with an inspection system similar to that for care homes. So I am sorry to see that Phil has faith in his doctors and Hunt hasn't for his.What "doctors think" confuses me. The Shaping a Healthier Future medical team were paid, had read and learnt the script and trotted out the "party line". I ignore them. And Phil could say the same for Dr Onka Sahota. What really interests me is why doctors as a group remained strangely silent. Were they overworked and just couldn't take on political argument? Are they doing nicely financially and will continue to do so ...so don't rock the boat. Were they scared...best not to put your head above the parapet. Did they not care or were they just not be able to get their heads round the changes so stayed silent. There is a crisis in all aspects of GP provision so maybe this is reflected in their lack of engagement. I have to say no group of doctors and surgeons marched to promote these changes but many marched against them. Who knows? The few that do speak out seem to be mildly for these changes or vehemently against. I have no idea what the majority of doctors think.Phil obviously does.

Arthur Breens ● 4201d

Jean,You are right that the current changes are worrying.  We have heard a lot of noise from the left but little real information.  The NHS will get sued if there are mistakes so I suspect that they will work hard to ensure that mistakes are minimised, indeed the doctors think that their proposals will lead to better outcomes (as they did on a huge scale when stroke services were reduced to fewer, more specialist services).  The stroke changes demonstrated that it is better to get the right service further away than to get a substandard service close to home.  They have halved death rates from stroke I understand.  I suspect that the most likely outcome after 10th September is that no-one will notice the change.  Most people who go to Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A&Es as walk in cases now will get treated by the urgent care centres 24/7.  People who call ambulances will get taken quickly to an A&E and treated very well.  There may be cases of people ignoring advice to dial 999 and taking themselves or their relatives to the wrong place.  That can happen now.  The advice for a long time has been dial 999 if you are in a life threatening situation.  The ambulance crews are trained to stabilise you and get you to the right place.  The NHS cannot prioritise making it easy for visitors over getting people the right health outcomes efficiently.  It just can't.  Sure Northwick Park is awkward to get to.  I did it once on the Tube and it was a 60 minute journey as I recall.  Right now my Dad is in St Mary's.  The 30 minute door to door journey on the train is no problem at all.  Part of SaHF is a new health centre for Acton to make it easy for people with chronic conditions to get the services they need close to home.  The NHS is not really advertising the good bits of its proposals but Labour is sure talking about the bad bits (which would have happened in exactly the same way under a Labour government since they put the £20 billion Nicholson Challenge in their manifesto on page 4:3).  Yes, our NHS services are going to change.  As they have kept changing for years.

Phil Taylor ● 4202d

Phil, the background you explained is very interesting, thank you.All I would say is that for residents living in West London these 'changes' or 'closures' to the vital A&E servicrs are all extremely worrying. Goodness knows what the outcome will be after 10 September.In an emergency, or a life or death situation time is off the essence and at the end of the day patients want a service we can rely on. Surely the further away the patient has to travel is endangering the life of that patient?If the land is sold off and the loss of hundreds of hospital beds where are patients going to recover and receive treatment? A cottage hospital is fine in a rural setting but this is London, a hugely over populated city!Also if a patient is taken to a hosptal miles from home this crestes all sorts of problems for relatives trying to visit, and for the patients feeling isolated in a hospital he/she does not know! For instance, travelling to Northwick Park from Acton would be an absolute nightmare for those of us using public transport!Think of patients having to attend hospital on a daily basis, this would cause them more stress and not help their recovery process.I wonder just how much thought has gone into these changes/closures apart from saving money by selling off land for development.This is not a political scoring comment but I clearly remember Mr Cameron saying that the NHS is safe in his hands. I actually wonder whether our much loved/hated NHS is now safe in anyone's hands.

Jean F Fernandez ● 4202d

Gerry,Aneurin Bevan's achievement in driving through a centralised, monolithic NHS needs to be seen in the context of its time which few people remember or have studied.  The NHS creation myth is just a myth.  The way it has been appropriated by Labour is a concerted act of misdirection. It was the Liberals in the early 20th century who started monitoring child health in schools (1907) and introduced health insurance for working people that gave people treatment that was free at the point of use.  Before the war there was a vast network of voluntary and local authority hospitals and health schemes.  It was a patchwork though.  The pre-war Conservative government set up the wartime Emergency Medical Service which took control of hospitals and delivered free healthcare through the war.  It was this precedent that made a peacetime national health service feasible.  The 1944 national health service white paper was produced by the Conservative Minister of Health, Henry Willink.  It is well worth reading.  It was the long negotiated compromise between the main Conservative and Labour members of the coalition that aimed to deliver comprehensive healthcare, free at the point of use.  It squared the medical vested interests.  It was based on the idea of local authorities playing the main role in "joint authorities" (and therefore making sure that service was local and accountable).  It left the vast voluntary hospital movement intact as a service provider to the "joint authorities".  It was an incremental approach that built on the existing very well developed health system.  The NHS creation myth does not acknowledge that there was already a huge health system in place before the NHS.  With its massive majority the new Labour government was able to do what it liked and to ignore the carefully negotiated solution produced by the wartime coalition.  Labour's taste was for control and nationalisation.  Instead of the agreed approach in the white paper Labour forced through a mass nationalistion of the existing health infrastructure producing the unresponsive, monolithic monster that we know and love/hate today.  It is worth noting that all Bevan did was to nationalise the existing health infrastructure.  The NHS didn't manage to build ANY new hospitals until the 1960s.  The "creation" of the NHS didn't create any hospitals or GP's surgeries.  They were all there already.  All Bevan did was appropriate local authority and charity assets.  He didn't take on the doctors though so he didn't steal their businesses and they remain private contractors to this day.  He famously “stuffed their mouths with gold”.  He had no compunction though about stealing from charitable institutions and the NHS has been selling off these assets ever since.  Land and buildings bought through legacies and donations of the public have been on sale ever since 1948.  Just go and look at the railings in front of the Mattock Lane health centre and imagine the hospital that used to be there.  Often some of the most respected and effective bits of the NHS are those that retain their pre-NHS identity, for instance Great Ormond Street founded in 1852.  The hospital was funded by subscriptions and donations. Its services were provided free of charge, exclusively for the children of the poor. Bevan is to be respected for his drive and his achievement.  We might all be better off if he had compromised on the 1944 white paper produced by a Tory Minister of Health.  When Labour politicians say the Tories voted against the NHS they are telling a huge lie.  A comprehensive health service, free at the point of use was Conservative policy and in their 1945 manifesto.  They voted against Bevan's centralised, nationalised structure.  Quite rightly.

Phil Taylor ● 4203d