Cameron tells Lansley to abandon NHS plans

At least, I presume he must have done because he’s written to cabinet ministers telling them that reducing the deficit is the government’s top priority. And, as any fule kno, the NHS reforms are going to cost huge amounts of money so they will not help to reduce the deficit at all. If anything, they will make it worse.

If it really is about the deficit, stupid, then no-one would even consider a pointless and expensive re-organisation of a service that could be made more efficient using its existing structures. Would they?

Update: Sharp-eyed as ever, the HSJ’s Sally Gainsbury spotted this on Page 13, Para 2.6 of the NHS White Paper:

The Government intends to bring about an NHS information revolution, to correct the imbalance in who knows what.

In a similar vein, Andrew Rawnsley told this story:

A senior official was recently asked whether Number 10 had grasped in advance the magnitude of the impact on the NHS of the Lansley plan. The official replied: “They still don’t.”

OK everybody, all together now…..


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Cameron tells Lansley to abandon NHS plans

  1. Pingback: Cameron tells Lansley to abandon NHS plans - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. Vince Lammas says:

    I’m not so sure.

    While saying the deficit was the top priority, Cameron and Clegg also described major shifts in political life … including a “radical redistribution of power from government to communities and people, to reverse decades of overcentralisation”.

    Moving control in healthcare towards social enterprises, community-based GPs and local authorities seems well-suited to the “Big Society”, “Total Place” and broader coalition thinking on decentralisation and devolution to local people.

    Effective leaders can generally find funds for projects that are dear to them.

    If the removal of regional and national healthcare tiers buys them sufficient political space (and efficiencies) to go ahead, I suspect they will …. even if it costs money in the short term.

  3. Rick says:

    Vince – it’s that last bit that will be the problem. I don’t see how such a major re-organisation can pay for itself, either by cost reduction or productivity increases, until towards the end of the decade, and even that assumes that everything goes to plan.

    On your other points, I agree – these reforms are about creating a different model of government and, ultimately a different sort of society. In other words, they are ideologically rather than financially driven.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s