It may not have been pretty, but Labour gave new life to the NHS

25 March 2010 | By Richard Vize

This week leading commentators give their verdict on Labour’s 13 year stewardship of the NHS.

The greatest success is that Labour secured the service’s future. As former chief executive Nigel Crisp reminds us, in the mid-90s hospitals and equipment were crumbling, waiting lists totalled over a million and ideological opponents from the right were arguing that the state could no longer sustain universal healthcare.

In the mid-90s the right was arguing that the state could no longer sustain universal healthcare

Now the Tories go into the election determined to seize the mantle of “the party of the NHS” - unthinkable under Thatcher in the 1980s.

Demolishing waiting lists was achieved by force of political will. It was a core promise to voters in 1997. But it was supposed to be paid for in part by “releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape”. That was forgotten. Instead, in a move typical of Tony Blair’s rejection of old left insecurities, he marshalled the private sector to clear some of the operations backlog and frighten the NHS into clearing the rest.

The market was back, but foundation trusts and the independent sector have yet to make competition an effective tool for driving quality up and cost down.

The loathed target culture improved services such as cancer diagnosis but too often overrode clinical judgement. Chief executives discovered failure to hit targets was career-terminating, while clinicians and managers talked of a culture of bullying. This helped precipitate Labour’s most spectacular mistake - stuffing the pay packets of staff while losing their respect. Consultants’ car parks glistened with the latest in motoring comfort but the drivers felt ignored and marginalised. GP pay bulged but relations with ministers soured. Productivity slipped. So much money, far too little achieved.

But the capacity is there. While the savings now required are the biggest and most sustained in the service’s history, it has more staff, better facilities, more clinical and management expertise and more ambition.

Readers' comments (3)

Anonymous | 25-Mar-2010 12:12 pm
What any rose tinted view of the past 13 years needs is to consider is at what cost, both human and financial, Labour 'saved' the NHS.

The human cost includes endless scandals, high death rates, clinical errors, targets put before safety, bullying experienced by 1 in 5 staff from within the NHS...the list is long.

We are no longer admired around the world and have shamefully inadequate services compared to many European countries. The human cost in morale and engagement which despite this week as reported as 'improving' is woefully low. The constant attack by government on clinicians and disasterous medical staff planning has left us with dejected consultants and poorly trained juniors often working outside their capabilities. Managers and clinicians have never been so polarised. The NHS is held together by clinicians keeping patients from the abhorrent practices employed to hit targets. For that we should be very grateful.

The financial cost will be remembered for a generation. Throwing £billions of our money at the NHS was irresponsible. The outrageous level of funding given to the NHS which countless reviews said was wasted on poorly negotiated pay settlements to premium payments to the private sector for not even treating patients is a scandal.

The bottom line is that politicians should be kept out of meddling with the NHS.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 25-Mar-2010 3:11 pm
Interesting interpretation also:

"We are no longer admired around the world and have shamefully inadequate services compared to many European countries."

Unfortunately it was like that for sometime before 1997 and only in the past 5 years have we started to see the incremental improvements required.

The challenge for us all will be maintaining and improving services as we move back to the funding increases of the previous 4 decades.

Unfortunately some of us have been around long enough to remember what it was like.

The media savy public will have to keep the politicians to account or it will all be lost.

Is it possible only time will tell!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 26-Mar-2010 5:23 pm
"The bottom line is that politicians should be kept out of meddling with the NHS."

I agree with everything this person said. I also agree with the article though, that the NHS has been saved when conservative politicians wanted to demolish it. Was the cost worth it??? I would hate to have lost the NHS, at any cost, but no, I do not agree with how it has been done, nor how much money has been wasted. Nor can I comprehend the huge amount of money that is spent on private consultancy firms who have given many NHS organisations impractical targets and wasted so much of our precious funds. I still think the NHS in the UK, although not quite as admired, has shown that national health services can survive and deliver services as good as the private sector, and after 10 years of being told we should be following America's example, it's really good at last that America has acknowledged that it needs healthcare for all which is the principle of the UK system.

As with the second person, I think, despite all the shameful waste of the recent government, we are probably entering a period that is more like the funding we recieved during the previous government, and we have to make sure that we don't return to understaffed, under-resourced, and under-appreciated public health services, which the public has almost unanimously stated that it wants to keep.
Unsuitable or offensive?