By John C. Dyer, UK correspondent
5 Feb 2012 marked the kickoff of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, to be celebrated throughout the coming year. 6 Feb 2012 was the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the throne.
On her accession the young Elizabeth dedicated herself to serve her people. For 60 years through governments of every political persuasion, she has maintained a constant dignity in public and reputed adept private counsel behind the scenes. Literally thousands of visits to every corner of the globe have contributed to national pride and a national sense of well being, as have her quiet dignity in moments of great personal and national adversity.
The Queen, a great force for stability as well as its symbol, nevertheless presides, through no fault of her own I might add, over an increasingly troubled land beset by social discord beneath which often seems a placid surface to the rest of the world.
31 Jan 2012, the Queen, pursuant to the recommendation of a Whitehall committee, stripped Fred Goodwin of his knighthood.
In stripping Goodwin the Committee set a new precedent. He had not been convicted of any crime or been guilty of any offense comparable to those of others who had been similarly dishonoured in the past. By 5 Feb Goodwin had also resigned his role with the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. That he held such a post and had not been removed from it at the same time his knighthood had been stripped reflects the sudden onset of the new ethics.
On 6 Feb the management of Network Rail chose to waive their annual bonus for the pot of money to be redirected into financing safety measures.
Discontent with bankers and the banks has simmered ever since 2008. But recently anger has been building. Politicians, both on the Left and the Right of the political spectrum have tried to mount the wave, like surfers encountering an Australian “big one.” Goodwin’s departure and the curbing of the bonus awarded new RBS boss Hestor seem to have potentiated rather than curbed the wave.
1 Feb 2012, 36 days into the Leveson inquiry into press ethics (or the lack thereof) and its appropriate form of regulation, the Daily Mail published a cartoon by “Mac,” entitled “Rise of the Black Squirrel.” The cartoon appeared on page 17. The cartoon showed a number of black animals perched on a tree and listening to another that says, “I have a dream.” In case the reader did not understand the message, a billboard appears identifying the group as the “black squirrels.” On 6 Feb the Daily Mail's CEO, Paul Darce appeared before Leveson arguing for continued self regulation of the industry.
On 5 Feb 2012 hackers took over The Daily Mail’s recipe page. While not specifically precipitated by the cartoon, the hackers cited the Mail’s alleged racism among other reasons for the attack. URLs have been deleted in case of virus attached.
Racism is very much an issue of the day.
On 3 February England football’s FA governing body dumped John Terry as team captain during the pendency of criminal charges against him for abusing another player with a racist taunt. He was the second major player in recent weeks to be disciplined for racist comments. Luis Suarez from Liverpool is currently serving an 8 game ban after the FA concluded he had used a racist comment with regard to another player.
Suarez’s coach, the famous Kenny Dalglish, maintains that the FA dealt unfairly with Suarez. as does Chelsea Coach Villas-Boas with regards to Terry being stripped of his England Captaincy. On 6 Feb England Manager Fapio Capello argued that Terry should not have been stripped unless and until convicted by a court.
Critics, on the other hand, pointedly ask what, then does racism mean if not this. Critics note that public statements in the heat of battle reflect an unacceptable and pervasive private attitude that must be quashed.
Perceived racism was almost certainly a major factor in last summer’s riots, described previously on WhirledView. (http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2011/10/what-you-were-not-told-about-the-london-riots-of-2011.html) Anti Semitic attacks were the given reason for the government awarding £2 million to bolster security at Jewish schools and attacks on Muslims are also becoming common.
The reasons for this social tension are complex. They should not be oversimplified.
They are not an easy subject for a blog piece.
But it is undeniable that both the current economic situation and the government’s response to it play a part - some would argue the major part. Many believe that the Coalition’s programme of austerity cuts to the public sector coupled with its radical agenda of reform, each reform touted as the greatest in a generation, have severely exacerbated the situation. Some authorities blame these for the London riots. I previously described the political revolt over the Coalition’s Welfare Reform bill.
Now evidence has emerged in the debate, particularly the resort of organizations like the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party to use the term “scrounger” to describe recipients of benefits, has fueled hatred and abuse of the disabled.
The increasing social tension, austerity and Westminster bullying may fuel growing cries for governance change in Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall, previously reported at http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2012/01/the-ground-begins-to-move-beneath-the-united-kingdom.html . 5 Feb 2012, YouGov polls reported results of a recent poll of Scottish attitudes toward the upcoming referendum on independence. Approximately 2 years in advance of an actual vote the poll showed 37% in favour, 42% opposed, and 21% undecided.
These figures show a marked movement among the electorate. Once a dead bang loser, the independence referendum looks increasingly possible. Increasingly in Scotland the future of Scotland appears to be Westminster’s to lose. One begins to feel like just one wrongly played issue could end up deciding the referendum.
Reform of the National Health Service (NHS) may prove to be such an issue.
Beginning 8 Feb the House of Lords will debate the government’s NHS reform bill. It is another of the government’s controversial “greatest reform in a generation” revamps of government services.
The saga of the approach the government has taken since it came to office reminds me of the Arnold Schwarzenegger playbook when the Gubernator came to power in California. Like the Gubernator they moved for a “bonfire of the Quangos,” a phrase similar to the Gubernator’s “bonfire of the advisory boards.” Quangos and advisory boards are pretty similar and the objections to them were the same. Then there was the Gubernator’s “California Performance Review.” Immediately on assuming office the new Coalition did the same. Like the Gubernator the Coalition has sought to reform every aspect of government. Like the Gubernator the Coalition has sought to restructure pensions and employment rights.
But there are differences. First, the Prime Minister, unlike the Gubernator, does not have to contend with a separation of powers between Executive and Legislative. He has Parliamentary discipline. The Gubernator could have only have dreamed. Second, the Prime Minister brings his programme allegedly in response to the debt crisis triggered by the banking bust of 2008, while the Gubernator was not aided by that reason.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has faced a backlash on banker bonuses, tax avoidance, welfare reform and NHS reform. With regards to NHS, a significant backlash that may dwarf the backlash against Welfare Reform has built up. The outcome of the upcoming debate is by no means a given.
In a lengthy bill the government proposes two principle changes. The first is to move management of the NHS out from government agencies called Primary Care/Hospital Care Trusts (managed principally by administrators) into General Practice Commissions (operated principally by medical professionals, including nurses as well as physicians). The second is the introduction of rules and mechanisms designed to push competition and the utilization of private providers and health care organizations. Particularly controversial are requirements NHS contract with “any willing provider,” translated private providers.
Advocates argue that the changes will put the GP and patient in the driver’s seat in the management of a patient care improved by “choice.” Critics argue that “choice” is code for the dismantling and privatization of the NHS.
It is clear that services will be privatized, but it is not yet clear that the government intends to entirely dismantle the NHS. It would take a mind reader to be clear whether the government really believes its own rhetoric. Critics reach the conclusion the government’s rhetoric is pretext from comparing government statements of intent with multiple studies and histories showing the proposed choice will undercut the viability of the NHS as a whole. And then there is the small matter of unguarded comments by a Minister here and there. The oops factor.
My own experience in public hospitals suggests that critics are correct at least to this extent - the introduction of choice will undercut the financial viability of the NHS system. That proved to be the case when in the 1970s California introduced “mainstreaming” into the provision of medical care for the medically indigent. It was meant to help. Today many can only daydream of the old days of public hospitals. It will never come again because the capitol outlay is simply out of the question. Critics argue that is what the British system will face.
One can debate endlessly whether the resulting system will be better or worse for patients. Supporters of the current system point to studies that suggest that the NHS is the single most cost effective care delivery system in the world, delivering essential services “free at the point of delivery” to all of the UK. Critics point to disappointing (if perhaps dated) studies concerning cancer recognition rates. The Tory half of the Coalition in particular has been “ruthless” (in the words of a loose lipped Tory Minister) in exposing the system’s alleged failures in patient care. Critics rebut that the private sector is not subject to the NHS’ requirements of public transparency and that actual current performance is very good. Even the Prime Minister has been careful to describe himself as loving the NHS, although one is always deeply suspicious of a love that wants to significantly change the alleged object of affection.
My own experience suggests the truth is somewhere in between.
I have no doubt that a Canadian or French style system, if indeed that is where the government is headed, would deliver abundant, designer care to those who still receive services. I have no doubt patients who actually receive such care would find it more subjectively satisfying (having received care from both types of systems). The NHS system grew out of rationing in WWII. It sometimes still suffers from a rationing mentality and care is in fact still rationed. NHS doctors and staff sometimes seem insensitive to a patient’s subjective wants and needs, putting the emphasis on what has been proven beyond a doubt and not on setting the patient’s concerns at ease.
On the other hand, the UK risks backing into a US system in which 40% of the public cannot afford care. One cannot transition smoothly to an intelligently designed French or Canadian model system by turning the current public system into chaos in order to destroy it as an alternative.
The choice it seems to me to be between abundant, designer care for a few and adequate care for everyone.
But whatever the pros and cons, it cannot be seriously questioned by proponents that the system the Coalition proposes will not increase costs geometrically. Hence a decided “tilt” when one considers the Coalition’s argument that such changes are necessary because of the costs of providing care to Seniors.
Such geometric cost increases and the attendant incapacity of the system to cope are already happening. The government pushed ahead with implementation even before obtaining formal approval from Parliament, and did so despite a public outcry that forced an alleged “pause and listen” last year. One wonders what was paused. The NHS professionals have made it clear that the current system is rapidly decompensating under the pressures.
This “greatest reform in a generation” has proven to ignite the biggest single backlash from the public toward any of the government’s reforms. How great the backlash can be seen vividly in this chart produced by opponent Physicians.
It would be wrong to intimate the sky is falling, but it would be equally wrong to ignore the centrifugal forces, some of which are clearly exacerbated by current government policies. Particularly the government’s penchant for “the greatest reform in a generation.” On the eve of the debate in the House of Lords, it is perhaps past time for the Prime Minister to ask himself if further destabilization of the UK is a price worth paying. A government policy effectively of everyman for himself is proving to be everyman hated and everyman lost.
The Queen, as ever, is doing her part. But she cannot do it alone.
