Despite strong opposition in the media and on the ground, Andrew Lansley is still signing off on A&E closures.
.
By Fiona Twycross AM (Labour), writing in a personal capacity
You would be hard pressed to find a politician from any party prepared to openly support A&E closures.
If you believed what you read in local papers, the closures are apparently universally opposed by public and politicians alike. Despite this, and despite strong opposition on the ground, Andrew Lansley is still signing off A&E closures.
Why?
The simple (obvious) answer is because the Tories and Lib Dems are allowing him to buy their support in parliament for the changes to the health service and NHS cuts.
In return Tory and Lib Dem politicians appear to be being given free rein to be oppositional at a local level.
Opposition to local cuts is sanctioned, even to the extent that it is not a resigning matter for Paul Burstow to be opposing the closure of the A&E at his local St Helier hospital even though he is minister. There’ll some of you out there itching to point out that Hazel Blears was allowed to do the same but at least she wasn’t a health minister like Burstow who is opposing cuts to services at his local St Helier hospital.
At the 11 July plenary session of the London Assembly, members – including the Conservatives and Lib Dems – unanimously spoke against A&E closures to the extent it sounded almost churlish to criticise the coalition on health (although I did).
All Assembly members present voted in support of a Labour motion on the issue. You would think you were in a parallel universe where there was universal agreement that the cuts weren’t being allowed to go ahead.
• IFS: NHS budget squeeze set to last “at least a decade” 4 Jul 2012
• Cuts to the NHS are triggering higher costs and severe consequences elsewhere 22 Jun 2012
• The NHS crisis: A spotter’s guide 18 Jun 2012
In permitting localised opposition, the government is recognising the danger of electoral defeat on the back of saving local hospitals like that suffered by Tory Richard Barnes at the hands of GP Dr Onkar Sahota, now Labour Assembly member for Ealing and Hillingdon. Permission (explicit or implicit) to oppose is, however, a dangerous path for a government and a sign of how wobbly (technical term) the coalition’s position is.
Yet, if it is genuinely the case that all politicians, including Lib Dem and Tory politicians who voted for the changes to the NHS, agree with the prevailing view of the public that the current round of proposed A&E closures are bad when it comes to their local hospital, can’t agreement be reached that the moratorium on A&E closures proposed by Cameron before the last general election should be honoured?
The only other conclusion to reach is that there is some serious opportunistic posturing going on.
28 Responses to “Genuine opposition or political posturing on A&E closures?”
BevR
RT @leftfootfwd: Genuine opposition or political posturing on A&E closures? http://t.co/2FjMmYE0
Kinnock
As far as the governments own quality indicators and ambulance waiting times are concerned, St helier a&e is the third best performing in Greater London. A good way to reward a unit which is jumping successfuly through every burning hoop the government puts in front of it!
Anonymous
To be fair, Greater London is the only place in the UK where hospital closures are really needed. But their targeting criteria, as you note, are more than slightly dodgy.
Mr. Sensible
Looks more like posturing to me.
Angus Carruthers
Fiona Twycross @fionatwycross: Genuine opposition or political posturing on A&E closures? #NHS #SaveOurNHS http://t.co/I3htWnfD