With the news dominated by moats and house-flipping, not to mention David Cameron's selfless spin on the subject, the Tories have been quietly performing a big policy U-turn. Regular readers of this blog will know my views about BMA spokesman Andrew Lansley, who has an occasional sideline as Cameron's health secretary in waiting. While Labour - with Alan Johnson - has been pursuing a resolutely patient-focused health agenda, Lansley has shown as much disdain for patients as the haughtiest consultant.
So, it is a pleasant surprise to see the Tories finally admitting that they got it wrong over polyclinics, Labour's plans to improve patient services by locating a range of GPs and specialists under one roof. Needless to say it has been left to an underling, Mark Simmonds, to admit that when Lansley and his protector Cameron claimed a year ago that one in five surgeries would close as a result of the new centres opening, they were talking utter rubbish.
Perhaps the perceptive Mr Simmonds could turn his attention to his bosses' belief that patients' interests would be well served by scrapping maximum waiting times and bringing back eighties-style waiting lists?
This post has been picked up by John Rentoul and Liberal Conspiracy.
Showing posts with label polyclinics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polyclinics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Sunday, 8 June 2008
Labour is getting it right on key issues
Today's Sunday Telegraph poll may confirm the dismal findings of earlier recent polls. But within today's Sunday papers, there is also a very clear sign that the government is getting it right on three of the most important policy areas.
First, the government is right to want to have the precautionary maximum 42-day detention period. Jacqui Smith gave a characteristically fluent account of the measure this morning. But its best defence comes from Matthew D'Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph. And the measure is supported by a majority of the public.
Second, Alan Johnson delivers a cracking case for his plans for more extensive GP surgeries and polyclinics in the Observer. The idea that it is worse for patients to be able to get an X-Ray or ECG on site, or to get minor injuries dealt with locally rather than hanging about for four hours in A&E, is such common sense that once delivered, patients will wonder what the fuss was about.
And third, the Government's plan to push for a rapid turnaround of underperforming schools with the support of successful heads and a big extension of Academies is exactly what is neededd for such schools. To those who say 'the government should have done this sooner', ministers can point to the fact that where one in two schools used to get 30% or fewer five good GCSEs, the figure is now one in five. But one reason why this policy is superior is its use of floor targets, one of the most successful policies of the last ten years, accompanied by structural reform.
What these three policies also have in common is that they are opposed by the Conservatives. Aside from Lord Tebbit and Ann Widdecombe, the 42 days are publicly opposed by the party. Tory health policy is being shamefully written by the BMA. And on education, the Tories would scrap targets, even when they are so patently a lever for improvement - and for pushing the sort of structural reform with which, at least, they share Labour's ambition.
The more the government can show the sense of purpose evident today, the more likely it is that they can recover their poll position. If, in the process, the bareness of Cameron's policy cupboard is also exposed, that would be no bad thing.
First, the government is right to want to have the precautionary maximum 42-day detention period. Jacqui Smith gave a characteristically fluent account of the measure this morning. But its best defence comes from Matthew D'Ancona in the Sunday Telegraph. And the measure is supported by a majority of the public.
Second, Alan Johnson delivers a cracking case for his plans for more extensive GP surgeries and polyclinics in the Observer. The idea that it is worse for patients to be able to get an X-Ray or ECG on site, or to get minor injuries dealt with locally rather than hanging about for four hours in A&E, is such common sense that once delivered, patients will wonder what the fuss was about.
And third, the Government's plan to push for a rapid turnaround of underperforming schools with the support of successful heads and a big extension of Academies is exactly what is neededd for such schools. To those who say 'the government should have done this sooner', ministers can point to the fact that where one in two schools used to get 30% or fewer five good GCSEs, the figure is now one in five. But one reason why this policy is superior is its use of floor targets, one of the most successful policies of the last ten years, accompanied by structural reform.
What these three policies also have in common is that they are opposed by the Conservatives. Aside from Lord Tebbit and Ann Widdecombe, the 42 days are publicly opposed by the party. Tory health policy is being shamefully written by the BMA. And on education, the Tories would scrap targets, even when they are so patently a lever for improvement - and for pushing the sort of structural reform with which, at least, they share Labour's ambition.
The more the government can show the sense of purpose evident today, the more likely it is that they can recover their poll position. If, in the process, the bareness of Cameron's policy cupboard is also exposed, that would be no bad thing.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
How Cameron is abandoning patients for doctors' cheers
While brave Beverley Hughes eschews cheap cheers from rowdy headteachers, cowardly Andrew Lansley - David Cameron's shadow health secretary for life - is rolling over to have his tummy tickled by shameless GPs and their trade union, the BMA. As an interview in last week's Pulse revealed, Lansley is planning to scrap polyclinics and allow GPs to return to opening when it suits them rather than for the convenience of their patients. He will abandon a Labour target that half of surgeries should open longer hours (the Tories are also committed to longer waiting times for hospital appointments). Yet, as consultation in London has revealed, over half of people consulted in the capital want polyclinics and three-quarters favour evening and weekend opening. The fact that the Tories are able to get away which such anti-patient policies shows just how little scrutiny they now get from a media that would roast Labour alive if it aligned itself so closely with a powerful trade union. The fact that they can advocate such policies shows how far removed they are from the true interests of people who work and pay their taxes to fund GPs' salaries.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
The truth about the 'holistic' family doctor
David Aaronovitch is on top form today in his defence of polyclinics over the ludicrous claims of the doctors' trade union about the 'family doctor'. Here he gets to the nub of the matter.
Richard Vautrey, of the GPs' committee of the British Medical Association, has been the chief voice raised at the weekend in opposition to Lord Darzi. He was principally worried about the loss of the role of medical generalist. The new specialists, he claimed, such as those looking at children's or women's problems, would “undermine” GPs and mean that doctors would no longer “provide a holistic, generalised service that patients really value”.....When I saw this claim, I thought long and hard about it. And decided that this “holistic” approach, is, in fact, code for “inexpert”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)