'To what extent was the British Government's Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2020 limited by austerity cuts on the NHS?'
And we thought David Cameron's reputation couldn't get much worse.
Already a pariah Prime Minister after calling a divisive referendum which he can't be on the right side of, he will likely now get the blame for the weakness of public services during one of the most serious pandemics in modern history.
The man can't win.
In the largest ranking of post-war prime ministers since the referendum, Cameron sits at an embarrassing eleventh (out of thirteen). This is in large part because of said referendum, which was called to heal the Conservative Party but ended up ripping apart the country, but also because of his controversial response to the Great Recession.
With an economy in recession, unemployment rising, and a hefty budget deficit (where government revenue is less than government spending), Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, cut government spending by nearly £15bn in three years; mostly focusing on welfare, social services and local government.
And even when Cameron fell in 2016, Theresa May's government continued the programme. By 2019, there had been £30bn in spending reductions. Even though under her watch austerity was technically ended, aside from health there have been no 'real' increases in spending since ('real' means above inflation, i.e. actually increasing spending levels).
It's important to note that spending on the NHS didn't decrease in real terms across the decade - Cameron and Osborne 'ring-fenced' it. But until 2017 it didn't increase either. That left it unable to cope with the indirect consequences of lower social care and local government spending. It also means that it hasn't received the serious investment needed to respond to a crisis - such as the yearly winter crisis.
Or, say, a pandemic.
When the spread of Covid-19 decreases, there will be a post-mortem on the NHS and its response to coronavirus. And already it is blindingly clear that the provider of, objectively, the highest quality healthcare in the world (not overall best though - more here), is unable to respond to the demand.
A 'tsunami', an 'explosion' of cases in London hospitals has left them short of intensive care beds, compounded by a further shortage of staff. There is a chronic lack of equipment and protective clothing. Retired medics, volunteers and the army are being drafted in.
To link all these shortfalls to austerity would be a poor piece of political theatre. Healthcare systems around the world have been swamped by Covid-19. Many of the shortages are simply because staff are falling ill. There was no need for thousands of extra respirators a year ago. This is a crisis that the globalised world has never before faced, and is far more significant than policy decisions made ten years previously.
However, there is an arguable link. The NHS could well have been in a structurally more robust place, with more beds and capacity than it otherwise was in early 2020. It may have moved quicker, more effectively, needing less support, if not for a lack of spending. It could never have prevented or limited the disease, but it may have inspired more confidence.
And the concerns are already there. Austerity is being openly linked as the root cause of all the issues the NHS is facing. That is wrong.
But, still, when the dust settles, Cameron will be blamed.
He may have successfully dragged the economy out of a recession, but this, and the referendum?
He'll be this century's Chamberlain.
And we thought David Cameron's reputation couldn't get much worse.
Already a pariah Prime Minister after calling a divisive referendum which he can't be on the right side of, he will likely now get the blame for the weakness of public services during one of the most serious pandemics in modern history.
The man can't win.
In the largest ranking of post-war prime ministers since the referendum, Cameron sits at an embarrassing eleventh (out of thirteen). This is in large part because of said referendum, which was called to heal the Conservative Party but ended up ripping apart the country, but also because of his controversial response to the Great Recession.
With an economy in recession, unemployment rising, and a hefty budget deficit (where government revenue is less than government spending), Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne, cut government spending by nearly £15bn in three years; mostly focusing on welfare, social services and local government.And even when Cameron fell in 2016, Theresa May's government continued the programme. By 2019, there had been £30bn in spending reductions. Even though under her watch austerity was technically ended, aside from health there have been no 'real' increases in spending since ('real' means above inflation, i.e. actually increasing spending levels).
It's important to note that spending on the NHS didn't decrease in real terms across the decade - Cameron and Osborne 'ring-fenced' it. But until 2017 it didn't increase either. That left it unable to cope with the indirect consequences of lower social care and local government spending. It also means that it hasn't received the serious investment needed to respond to a crisis - such as the yearly winter crisis.
Or, say, a pandemic.
When the spread of Covid-19 decreases, there will be a post-mortem on the NHS and its response to coronavirus. And already it is blindingly clear that the provider of, objectively, the highest quality healthcare in the world (not overall best though - more here), is unable to respond to the demand.
A 'tsunami', an 'explosion' of cases in London hospitals has left them short of intensive care beds, compounded by a further shortage of staff. There is a chronic lack of equipment and protective clothing. Retired medics, volunteers and the army are being drafted in.
To link all these shortfalls to austerity would be a poor piece of political theatre. Healthcare systems around the world have been swamped by Covid-19. Many of the shortages are simply because staff are falling ill. There was no need for thousands of extra respirators a year ago. This is a crisis that the globalised world has never before faced, and is far more significant than policy decisions made ten years previously.
However, there is an arguable link. The NHS could well have been in a structurally more robust place, with more beds and capacity than it otherwise was in early 2020. It may have moved quicker, more effectively, needing less support, if not for a lack of spending. It could never have prevented or limited the disease, but it may have inspired more confidence.
And the concerns are already there. Austerity is being openly linked as the root cause of all the issues the NHS is facing. That is wrong.
But, still, when the dust settles, Cameron will be blamed.
He may have successfully dragged the economy out of a recession, but this, and the referendum?
He'll be this century's Chamberlain.
No comments:
Post a Comment