Wes Streeting was being his usual self this weekend when talking without any obvious comprehension of the meaning of what he was saying at the Financial Times Weekend festival in London on Saturday.
He said that:
the new government would prioritise moving NHS treatment “from hospital to community”, “analogue to digital” and “sickness to prevention”. The three shifts “are absolutely necessary, and actually existential . . . for the future of the NHS”.
So, GPs are going to be the priority, even though there are many fewer of them now than a decade ago, and they are already being overwhelmed by demand, making it incredibly difficult to both recruit and retain them.
Then there is the nod to Tony Blair and his obsession with AI, which is obligatory from senior Starmer ministers these days. Good luck with that when no one has as yet got the NHS onto a single digital platform, and neither are they likely to do so.
But the third point is the most interesting. Streeting wants to talk about prevention. If he is to prevent ill health in this country, he has to do a number of things, of which by far the most important are:
- Reducing massively the consumption of sugar.
- Reducing, as a part of that goal, but also because of its impact on A&E demand, the consumption of alcohol.
- Seriously increasing the amount of exercise we take before and during old age to stop people from falling over as they get older.
- Treating people holistically so that vast numbers of drugs to treat single issues, many of which are the side effects of the over-consumption of sugar and alcohol when combined with a lack of exercise, are not prescribed when they, in turn, create massive medical risks that create inordinate cost whilst ultimately harming individual wellbeing.
In other words, he has to take on the sugar lobby, the alcohol lobby and big pharma whilst promoting something as simple as walking. He would also have to change the prescribing culture of medicine and ask that it treat the causes and not the consequences of excess consumption. If he did that, demand for NHS services would fall significantly. So, too, would the cost of the NHS fall dramatically.
But will Streeting take the steps necessary to make these changes? Of course, he will not: Labour is in hock to big sugar, alcohol and pharma, and so, of course, he is going to do nothing to challenge them. But in that case, he says the existence of the NHS is in doubt. If it is, it will be his inaction on the causes of ill health and the costs the NHS is incurring as a result that will bring it to his knees.
It would seem that Wes Streting is less the Health Secretary and more the undertaker in waiting of the NHS. His delivery of it to the private sector to provide health care to a few at a cost to many will, no doubt, make him a wealthy man. However, that plan that seems deeply embedded in him is the last thing that this country needs.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Labour is taking “donations” from private healthcare companies:
❌Keir Starmer £157,500
❌Health Secretary Wes Streeting £193,225
❌Home Secretary Yvette Cooper £231,817
Are they impartial, are they working for us or them?
Source: https://skwawkbox.org/2024/01/17/labour-front-bench-takes-650k-from-health-privateers-more-than-tories/
Thanks
Nothing either, although it can be argued its not an NHS issue illegal drugs.
I have no doubt that Mrs Murphy will have an informed opinion on this and that is before you get into the devastating issues that the illegal drugs trade causes in the areas it operates and the threat it represents to democracy.
Oh and no mention of Vapes either
I should, maybe have mentioned vapes.
The illicit drug trade is a much more complex, non medical issue.
For example, most people are relaxed about decriminalising cannabis, but medics certainly aren’t.
There is, of course, the systemic racism that manifests whenever action is demanded on illegal drugs.
“Despite white people reporting higher rates of drug consumption, black people were more likely to be stopped and searched for suspected drug possession and were more likely to be arrested, charged and imprisoned for drug offences, [Woolley] said.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/29/uk-drug-laws-used-as-tool-of-systemic-racism-says-ex-no-10-adviser
It all becomes part of the failure to holistically treat a sick society. What can we do when we lose hope?
Of the Ming variety?
“…most people are relaxed about decriminalising cannabis, but medics certainly aren’t.’
I didn’t know that.
I wonder why that is the case.
Because of the massive irreversible health risk it can pose to young people
“..the undertaker in waiting of the NHS. His delivery of it to the private sector to provide health care to a few at a cost to many will, no doubt, make him a wealthy man.”
That’s the long and short of it, isn’t it. Improving MPs’ wealth not the health or wealth of the population they control and are supposed to represent and do their very best for.
Is there any information on what recipients of these huge donations do with them?
The Electoral Commission has lots of information on political donations.
But there seems to be no restriction on what MPs can do with a donation.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain
Whenever I think of Streeting, I read in my mind that his second name is ‘Stripping’ because is what he is going to do with the NHS.
I think that fundamentally what is appalling is that we have bunch of very well-off individuals – or like ‘Stripping’ – on a promise to being well off for being his master’s voice – who, imbued with the power to look after themselves and afford private health care, have absolutely no empathy with the concept or benefits of a nationalised health service for the rest of us. They have decoupled from us.
Thus for me, the concept of democracy we work with is invalid because it is being dictated by a narrow band of people we are not actually part of us – part of the demos – the people. This is the blow-back from Thatcherism – the creation of a very rich cabal to rule over us, as the Mont Pelerin Society intended (as did those who funded it).
Thinking now about who Reeves(cividist) was cavorting with not so long ago: Laboured and its hierarchy are also inter-nationalists – globalists, for whom the concept of ‘Britain’ or being a sovereign nation does not really exist because they are more interested in the facilitation of and benefit from international money flows back and forth from the country. So the concept of ‘national investment’ and having a healthy populace just does not figure for them at all as something worthy.
In fact, quite the opposite – chronic ill health is an income stream to some. Hal Hartley’s film ‘ The Girl from Tuesday’ is a sci-fi film that creates a world where everything has a financial transactive value and where heart surgery is sold as life style choice.
I don’t know about you but we seem to have entered the world of the truly absurd because of market thinking and market objectives. We make people ill with too much sugar and cheap alcohol.
So in order to accommodate the profit making and of course the political funding (which should be nationalised) we turn a health service free at the point delivery into the problem.
Do you not find that shocking and disgusting?
I do. That is what we should be telling ‘Stripping’ – that we know what he is up to.
Please stop.
Or else.
The NHS is not the problem. It is our corrupt democracy that is the problem.
Well, Starmer doesn’t buy his own clothes or glasses for a start. Imagine taking money from a donor to buy your pants and socks! Yuck!
@ A C Bruce
Well at least Starmer’s trousers seem to fit him.
Rishi Sunak always looked as if he’d borrowed his after a night on the tiles. And they criticised Michael foot for his sartorial failings……. (Oh! and Jeremy Corbyn)
Some who decry the nanny state for interfering through preventative measures such as diet and exercise are swift to demand remedial measures from Nanny when they fall-down-go-boom.
The PFI company profits from 99 NHS contracts under New Labour £1.07 billion has been paid in dividends payments, large amounts such as £47.6 million have been paid out by NHS Trusts as part of these Contracts just
to cover the Directors Fees .
Was Wes asked
what is the Biggest Millstone around the NHS Neck
It’s PFI , Don’t forget the Connection for Health IT Fiasco under Blair/Brown
£23 Billion write off they claimed it only was £11 Billion
The NPfIT was officially dismantled in September 2011. Deemed the world’s largest civil IT programme, its failure and ultimate demise
Labour and IT systems they have History together
The failed connection for Health a £23 Billion write off
Birmingham Council Oracle £100 million
Failure
I have to say that is a burden, but nothing like the biggest
Below ,taken from the 1942 Beveridge Report which in turn lead to the creation of the NHS during the Atlee Government:
Disease: Attack on disease is a matter of prevention; second of cure. Prevention, beginning with health services in the narrow sense, spreads outwards into the problem of sanitation, housing, nutrition and local government. As to cure, opinion both public and professional, is probably ripe for a general re-organisation of the medical service of the community- so as to ensure that the best science o f the community- so as to ensure that the best that science can do is available for the treatment of every citizen at home and in institutions, irrespective of his personal means. There are practical difficulties and sectional interests to be overcome in this field as in dealing with want, but no fundamental political issues.
Labtory seems to want to revert to pre 1939 levels of ill health, poverty, lack of work, and so on.
Why?
Thanks
Very appropriate
If you’re arguing that sugar consumption needs to fall further from its peak around 70 years ago, then I would support that goal. But how do you come up with a policy that is evidence based and achieves that? The policy would also need to:
1. Not increase inequality (We’ve seen submissions recently that 0% and lo-alcohol drinks increase inequality for example) so you’d like a sugar policy to not do that.
2. And no involve the threat of court.
In a liberal society I don’t think anyone could think of one.
Oh come on, this is all about changing the make up of food we had never even thought of 30 years ago that is created to deliver massive dopamine hits and so be intensely addictive.
This is a requirement to be imposed on the makers of things claimed to be food and not on individuals
And just as salt intake has been seriously reduced in this way so too could sugar intake be
Except, chemical foodstuffs are now engineered to not satisfy us (high sugar levels us with a crash inducing a craving after a short period that induces excess consumption. Removing such foods would reduce inequality, not fuel it.
I’m sorry but I really don’t understand.
How do you set down “a requirement to be imposed on the makers of things claimed to be food” in legislation? The people on low incomes who are mostly likely to consider these things as part of a meal would surely beg to differ. And how does implementing your policy reduce inequality when the reduction in sugar since the 1950s has not. And how does it do that without the threat of court?
It would be seriously illiberal to intervene in peoples lives at the level you are thinking of in my view.
I am a little surprised by three things
One is that a person claiming to work for the organisation your email implies cannot imagine that legislation on the content of processed food is not possible or enforceable
The second is that they are unable to imagine the consequences
The third is they are so libertarian
You are a troll
The Government has failed to implement it’s own report
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-food-strategy-for-england
What hope is there?
To be fair, that was the under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government, which failed to retain the support of his backbenchers, and not under the current Labour Government. It does need revisiting!
I remember going to an ‘engagement’ hosted by NHS England about 10 years ago when the NHSE staff were presenting the programme which has been reported in the Guardian recently, about health checks in the workplace. At the time I thought I would object to my bosses knowing my health status! So that policy has been waiting for some time. Much of NHS England’s programmes were worked up by Simon Stevens in his role as world development lead for United Health of America and one of the big 4 Management Consultancy companies in 2013 and 2014 at the Davos World Economic Forum. Liz Kendall was there one year. As were some people who went on to become CEOs of NHS Hospital Trusts.
When WS speaks of treatment in the community, he is also including ‘virtual wards’ where people are monitored by machines ‘talking’ to hospital staff and recording vital signs, who are living at home to be looked after by family (cheaper than nurses), and Community Interest and for profit companies doing home visits. He will also be including fly by night voluntary groups and maybe charities to which ‘care navigators’ and ‘social prescribers’ employed by NHS GP surgeries and health centres direct those with moderate anxiety, loneliness, and early stage dementia. These change due to removal of joint funding from Councils but are not structural.
As for other IT issues, a recent development is the use of Epic, the American Billing programme in some NHS Hospital Trusts as a patient record system. Since it was designed to deliver billing, anecdotal evidence suggests it is user friendly on the patient portal side but very difficult for Consultants and other doctors to navigate.
The analysis offered re stripping chimes with me. Note the there is a tendency in Govt to talk the NHS down. I don’t want to articulate what I think will be the case 5 years. Oh and the Wellness industry is a multi million pound earner. They will be itching to take advantage of UK Govt funding.
Prevention is really about tackling the social determinants of health. Agree that diet important here but poverty top of the list, then add in pollution, climate change, poor housing, cold homes, poor jobs etc. Not much sign that Labour serious about tackling these so far.
Agreed
As noted here earlier today, Beveridge agreed with you
Labour does not seem to know about this, at all
I support a health strategy that looks are prevention rather than cure. Boris Johnson’s COVID-related hospital conversion led to his support for preventative health, which led to a DHSS obesity strategy (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-obesity-government-strategy/tackling-obesity-empowering-adults-and-children-to-live-healthier-lives). But that strategy crumbled with him.
Many health conditions (hypertension, heart disease, stroke, obesity, type-2 diabetes, dementia, cirrhosis, etc.) have long been linked to diet, though not only sugar which you identify, but salt/sodium, red meat, saturated fats, and many (though not all) ultra-processed foods or UPFs (NOVA class 4 – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification) too, as well as alcohol consumption. Many diet-related health issues are poverty related too – as UPF tend to be cheaper, convenient, and calorie rich foods – but lead to poor concentration in hungry children, affecting their learning and academic progression. This is a deterrent in taxing UPFs, unless healthy alternatives (fresh veg and fruit) can be subsidised (e.g. school breakfasts), which also risks being inflationary.
You say, “ Streeting wants to talk about prevention. If he is to prevent ill health in this country, he has to do a number of things….”, but actually the whole government needs to be supportive of a preventive health strategy – for many food-related policy issues are led on by other departments.
At the time of the Election, The Food Foundation produced a brief 5-point ‘manifesto’ of things that could be done to improve healthy food policy – and thereby improve public health (https://foodfoundation.org.uk/initiatives/election-2024-nourishing-nation) and have since identified 10 (almost) cost free politicies (https://foodfoundation.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-03/10%20Cost%20Free%20Policies.pdf). But these require support from many government departments.
I support the pressure you bring to bear on government to bring about a preventative health policy, but it needs he whole government to be behind this, and not only more Wes Streeting’s support.
The savings in health costs would allow free breakfasts and lunches for all children, and allowances for holidays
This is really not hard to overcome
Wes Streeting’s ideas about how to prevent ill-health are ridiculous and the future he is bringing will cost us many lives and much suffering
Contrast that with the brilliant and caring Michael Marmot. In his article in the 22 June, 2024 issue of The Lancet he describes the enormous increase in relative mortality and illness under Tory austerity. He calls for the NHS to be properly funded and that attention be paid to the social determinants of ill health. The greatest impact on illness and mortality is poverty. The solutions lie in public funding and policy.
He reiterates his eight principles, five of which are:
“- Give every child the best start in life
– Enable [everyone] to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives
– Create fair employment and good work for all
– Ensure a healthy standard of living for all
– Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities”
Compare them with Streeting’s piddling ideas!
We know what we need to do to create a decent and healthy society for all. There are no reasons that we can’t build that society, other than the greed and stupidity of our oligarchs in banks and government.
Agreed
I must read his article
In The Marmot Review, ‘Fair Soceity Healthy Lives’, (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/fair-society-healthy-lives-full-report.pdf ) Policy Objective D (at D.2.1) proposes replacing the Minimum Wage with a ‘Minimum Income for Healthy Living’ (MIHL) to include for a healthy diet (with fresh fruit and veg) and exercise (e.g., cost for trainers, cycle, swimming), as these calculations are not included in the minimum wage.
Noted
Improving the health of the population as you describe has to be a good thing, but the timescale for the changes to translate into reduced morbidity and longer active life could well be decades.
Will these changes result in greatly reduced costs? Not convinced. That was the Beveridge idea. Everyone will end up with the diseases of old age and better technology will mean more long term, expensive survival for many.
The Streeting idea that you move resources from secondary to primary care at the same time as restricting overall budgets will be a disaster. One of the main reasons why GPs are considering working to rule is the inappropriate secondary care created workload. GPs should be family doctors, not hospital outposts.
The history of the NHS is one of repeated re-disorganisation. The internal market, the 2012 Health and Social Care Act – the list is endless. Any reforms should aim to reverse the neoliberal ideology that created the current problems. In a word – bring back Beveridge.
Yes, all the ideas for improving public health are great, but we need to get back to an NHS based on socialist principles where clinicians are respected and ideologically driven micromanagement by government is a thing of the past and funding is based on population need.
Talk of prevention is at least interesting. Would be nice to have a politician who cares more about the health outcomes for the regular Josephine rather than the bottom line for capitalists with the health portfolio.
It is important to address the problems with food, especially for the least well off. Add to that, quality school meals with adequate portion sizes.
We need to cut air pollution. We need to reverse the trend of fewer people walking and more trips being made by motorcar. Time to stop marginalising the humble bicycle and demonizing people that ride bikes. We need to make it easier for people to ride with their children to school and then pedal on to work. The cycle scheme needs reform too so that it doesn’t destroy the margins of independent bike shops whilst favouring the likes of Halfords. And it needs to encourage sale of practical commuting bikes rather than serving as a tax break for higher rate taxpayers looking to buy high end racing, mountain and gravel bikes.
We also need to tackle seriously the issues of cycle theft, and bike muggings.
And whilst I see why vaping products should not be made to appeal to children and non-smoker’s (obvious really), they still have their place. I vape. The switch to vaping meant that I was able to stop smoking. It is less perfect then not-smoking, but it is at least 98% better than tobacco.
I also think redistributing wealth, an effective welfare state, better mental health support and high quality would all help to create a climate where people are less likely to turn to drugs, alcohol and substance abuse.
@Daniel C
“…The switch to vaping meant that I was able to stop smoking. It is less perfect then not-smoking, but it is at least 98% better than tobacco.”
THAT is not a fact. Time will tell. You certainly don’t know and if anyone does know they won’t tell you.
And if you are vaping you have not broken the inhaling habit you are just paying Big Pharma instead of farmers.
Tobacco is a plant. It’s natural. Rather as with sugar I’d sooner take my chances with a plant than with the pharmaceutical synthetics. (And I do know of plants considerably more lethal than either and have considered consuming them. With enough mayonnaise I expect they would be palatable in a sandwich.
Incidentally I’ve never seen research on the health effect of potassium nitrate.