221015
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

The Daily Sceptic’s In-House Doctor Casts a Cynical Eye Over the NHS Bits in the Party Manifestos

by In-house doctor
21 June 2024 7:00 AM

It’s pantomime season again. That time in the electoral cycle when politicians present their ‘retail offering’ to the public and strut the boards with faux sincerity worthy of Academy award winners. As with all works of fiction, if the show is to be truly enjoyable voters are required to demonstrate “willing suspension of disbelief”. Unfortunately, that’s where the game comes apart. Because to be frank, the manifestos stretch credulity well past breaking point.

The Daily Sceptic have asked me to comment on the health policies apparently on offer. I will firstly comment on the Conservative and Labour proposals and then consider the Reform party document. I don’t consider the Liberal Democrats or any other fringe organisations to be relevant.

Comparing the health positions of the Conservative and Labour parties is easy. They are virtually identical. The presentational language and imagery differ between the sanctimonious socialism of Labour and pretend pragmatism of the Conservatives, but looking through the bluster the policy offerings are remarkably similar.

On every substantive health issue, Labour and the Conservatives say the same thing. They will both grow the workforce by implementing the existing “Long term NHS workforce plan” and reduce waiting times for treatment. They both commit to “building 40 new hospitals”. Both sides pledge to improve the NHS app to enhance service accessibility; to improve dental and mental health services; to regulate hospital managers; to leverage our “world leading” health sciences sector and to enhance primary care. It is extremely difficult to find any major disparity between the two offerings – the only ones I can find are that Labour pledge to pay for more MRI and CT scanners, whereas the Conservatives propose to use unspecified new technology to improve reporting efficiency. The King’s Fund has provided a helpful summary for those readers interested in checking it out for themselves.

From a wider perspective, the Conservatives are trying to persuade the electorate to overlook the colossal failure of the NHS system under their stewardship to provide anything approaching an acceptable level of productivity. Labour, on the other hand, attempts to gull voters into believing that shovelling yet more taxpayers’ money into a deteriorating service will miraculously turn things around when the constraints on progress are systemically baked in.

Neither side make any attempt to address the core issues of culture and practice that make it unlikely that the NHS’s performance will improve in the foreseeable future. Both sides are conspicuously silent about the unending industrial dispute with the juvenile doctors – about to embark on another four-day strike directly before polling day in a pointless pursuit of a 35% pay rise.

My explanation of the extraordinary concordance in health manifestos is that the two main parties both realise that elected officials have next to no agency when it comes to dealing with the NHS. The sole function of politicians is to feed the machine with more and more taxpayers’ money, irrespective of falling productivity. Control does not lie with democratic representatives, but with technocratic functionaries. The functionaries in question are aware of their powerful position and also aware of the lack of moral hazard – simply put, they can’t be sacked for poor performance and have complete freedom to continue to act as an entity outside state control. The reason the Labour and Conservative health manifestoes are identical is because they’ve both effectively been written by NHS senior managers.

Which brings me to the Reform manifesto offering – plainly not written by NHS apparatchiks, if only because there is a clearly stated intention to reduce the numbers of NHS managers. There are some interesting and quite radical proposals in this document – but then, being radical is easy when there is virtually no prospect of you facing the challenge of having to implement any of these changes.

Taken at face value, the Reform proposals attempt to circumvent NHS vested interests and cultural intransigence by bypassing the organisation completely. Workforce incentivisation would be addressed by generous tax breaks for clinical staff. Student loans would be written off for doctors and nurses after 10 years’ service. Patients would be given vouchers to use with any health provider if waiting time targets were not met, and there would be 20% tax relief on private healthcare insurance. Whoever wrote the Reform document appreciates that attempting to achieve change in U.K. healthcare is not feasible by working within the NHS’s existing frameworks because the system will always act to resist and frustrate change.

Nevertheless, I see problems with this approach – as ever, the devil is in the detail. Exempting frontline NHS staff from basic rate tax is a bold attempt at incentivisation – but what is the definition of ‘frontline’? Given the NHS propensity for pushing the envelope, that definition could encompass all 1.5 million employees of this bloated monstrosity.

Writing off student debt for doctors and nurses also has its appeal – although that would incentivise students to borrow as much as possible in the first place. And if doctors and nurses are to have debt forgiveness, what about physios, and occupational therapists or hospital pharmacists, and so on.
Patient vouchers for private healthcare is an eye-catching proposal – at one time this was a Conservative policy. But it paradoxically incentivises doctors to prolong NHS waits on the basis that the government will then fund care in the private sector, for which the practitioner, moonlighting in the private sector, will then be paid extra by the taxpayer.

Finally, there is the issue of tax relief on private insurance premia. At first glance this seems prudent – why not directly incentivise people to use alternative routes to reduce pressure on the NHS? Unfortunately, there are potential problems here too. Such a scheme provides a subsidy to the private health insurance providers, allowing them to grow their market while maintaining their already substantial profit margins. If any senior person in Reform believes that a healthcare sector dominated by private insurance companies will provide value for money or an equitable approach to dealing with patients, they are mistaken. Having dealt with the insurers for 20 years as a private medical practitioner, I wouldn’t trust any of them.

So, in summary I’d give two cheers for Reform. I wouldn’t go as far as Professor Sikora’s ringing endorsement in the Telegraph, but the insurgent party does deserve credit for thinking differently. I would have preferred to see a specific commitment to examining fundamental change of the NHS to a mixed healthcare economy modelled along European or Antipodean social health insurance lines. These models of delivery have a long and consistent track record of outperforming the socialist NHS monolith or the inequitable and inefficient US system. Such a proposal would take decades to implement, require all-party support and be fiercely resisted by NHS unions and management. In short, it is highly unlikely to happen within my lifetime.

Despite the practical difficulty of this truly radical and necessary change, the first step is to get the idea on the national agenda, which might eventually move the ‘Overton window’ of political discussion. That would be real Reform. Feel free to call me sceptical, but we are nowhere near it yet.

The author, the Daily Sceptic’s in-house doctor, is a former NHS consultant, now retired.

Tags: General Election 2024Karol SikoraManifestosNHSReform

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

News Round-Up

Next Post

Lurking Behind the Election: Blair and His Technocratic Heirs

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
new follow-up comments
    Please log in to comment

    To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

    Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

    34 Comments
    Oldest
    Newest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    NEWSLETTER

    View today’s newsletter

    To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

    DONATE

    PODCAST

    The End of American Empire? – With Doug Stokes

    by Richard Eldred
    2 May 2025
    6

    LISTED ARTICLES

    • Most Read
    • Most Commented
    • Editors Picks

    BREAKING: Merz Government Orders Pushback of All Illegal Migrants at German Borders, Effectively Abolishing Asylum

    7 May 2025
    by Eugyppius

    News Round-Up

    8 May 2025
    by Richard Eldred

    Sun-Dimming Quango has £800 Million of Taxpayer Money to Blow – and a CEO on £450k

    8 May 2025
    by Sallust

    Orsted Cancels Hornsea 4 Wind Farm – and Kills Miliband’s ‘Clean Power 2030’ Agenda Dead

    7 May 2025
    by David Turver

    Definitive Guide to the WHO Pandemic Agreement

    7 May 2025
    by Dr David Bell and Dr Thi Thuy Van Dinh

    What Does Renaud Camus Actually Believe? Part Two: Is He Really a Conspiracy Theorist?

    26

    BREAKING: Merz Government Orders Pushback of All Illegal Migrants at German Borders, Effectively Abolishing Asylum

    21

    Orsted Cancels Hornsea 4 Wind Farm – and Kills Miliband’s ‘Clean Power 2030’ Agenda Dead

    41

    News Round-Up

    16

    Definitive Guide to the WHO Pandemic Agreement

    17

    Australia’s Liberal Party Only Has Itself to Blame for its Crushing Defeat by Labour

    8 May 2025
    by Dr James Allan

    EXCLUSIVE: Britain Forced to Spend £1.5 Billion to Mitigate Wind Turbine Corruptions to Vital Air Defence Radar

    8 May 2025
    by Chris Morrison

    What Does Renaud Camus Actually Believe? Part Two: Is He Really a Conspiracy Theorist?

    8 May 2025
    by Steven Tucker

    BREAKING: Merz Government Orders Pushback of All Illegal Migrants at German Borders, Effectively Abolishing Asylum

    7 May 2025
    by Eugyppius

    Definitive Guide to the WHO Pandemic Agreement

    7 May 2025
    by Dr David Bell and Dr Thi Thuy Van Dinh

    POSTS BY DATE

    June 2024
    M T W T F S S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    « May   Jul »

    SOCIAL LINKS

    Free Speech Union
    • Home
    • About us
    • Donate
    • Privacy Policy

    Facebook

    • X

    Instagram

    RSS

    Subscribe to our newsletter

    © Skeptics Ltd.

    Welcome Back!

    Login to your account below

    Forgotten Password? Register

    Create New Account!

    Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

    Already have an account?
    Please click here to login Log In

    Retrieve your password

    Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

    Log In
    wpDiscuz
    No Result
    View All Result
    • Articles
    • About
    • Archive
      • ARCHIVE
      • NEWS ROUND-UPS
    • Podcasts
    • Newsletter
    • Premium
    • Donate
    • Log In

    © Skeptics Ltd.

    You are going to send email to

    Move Comment
    Perfecty
    Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
    Notifications preferences