You are here: Home » Comment »

The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

February 12, 2012 4:08 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

“Michael,” said the Prime Minister, without looking up from his desk, “I thought you said this would be easy?”

“Easy? That what would be easy?” replied the Education Secretary, whose face had occupied a near-permanent state of mild bafflement, which was slowly becoming the kind of ever-present British institution that decades from now will be ruined by ill-thought out reforms, or having a roof built over it in case it rains.

“This NHS business. You said it would be easy.” The Prime Minister glanced up, his cheeks flushed, as his cheeks often were, and as such were a poor indicator of mood. “You said if we could get away with saying we were going to buy the Queen a massive yacht, then the NHS reforms would be a ‘doddle’. The yacht thing worked great; so what happened?”

“Ah, right. Well, I think, there’s two problems. One, no one likes the policy. Even most of us think it looks a bit rubbish. But that’s not the end of the world. In the first couple of years of Government you can usually push through some crap policies without anyone noticing, and after about 5 years you don’t have any good ideas left anyway, so all your policies are crap. The public are generally very forgiving of crap policy. I’d imagine even more so considering we’re in with the Liberals: they know we’ll have to go along with some of their crap policies. So the fact that our stance on the NHS isn’t any good isn’t a problem, really.”

The Prime Minister settled down his fountain pen, carefully, so that the seal of his office was showing. He looked up at the Education Secretary, as though he was looking down. “And the other problem, Michael…?”

“Well, when I said what I did… I hadn’t fully taken into account…” he paused, momentarily, stuck between a loss for words and knowing exactly what he wanted to say. “The truth is, I hadn’t fully taken into account quite how completely useless Andrew Lansley is.”

However, I don’t think Andrew Lansley is as useless as Andrew Lansley appears. I think there are other forces at work here. Forces making Andrew Lansley useless.

I think there’s always been a pitiable quality about Andrew Lansley. Yes, he is a man who looks like the pure embodiment of a Tory MP. If you cut him, he would likely bleed country pubs and tweed. He constantly appears to be simultaneously overtly smug and desperately pleading for votes. It is an art of paradox that he has managed to perfect withing facial expressions: there are plenty of photos of him in front of a van that says ‘NH YES!’ on it, where he manages to look utterly furious whilst still maintaining a shape with his mouth one could only identify as being a smile.

But there is something eminently pitiable about him. It’s his eyes. He’s got sad eyes. Disappointment and exhaustion lie in those eyes. His eyes are almost human. It’s as though there’s someone else trapped inside, who is constantly worried that they are an accomplice in his terrible plans and using all their strength to exert what little control they have over him enough to derail them.

Next time you see Andrew Lansley on telly, look at his eyes. Every now and then, he’ll nervous glance at the camera. In that moment, you can see everything. The person inside Andrew Lansley tries to tell us that it’s all going to be OK, that they’re doing what they can. They try and show us hope.

Thank you, person trapped inside Andrew Lansley trying to make him useless. We salute you. You’re doing a great job.

  • Anonymous

    ”
    But there is something eminently pitiable about him. It’s his eyes. He’s got sad eyes. Disappointment and exhaustion lie in those eyes. His eyes are almost human.”

    I’m getting a bit worried about some of you regular LL scribes. You think Lansley has sad eyes, Paul Richards told us the other day he thought Alan Milburn was “good looking”. Oh, well…

    But Conor, don’t feel sorry for Lansley. Unlike Frank Dobson, who was dragged reluctantly into the 2000 London Mayoral fiasco, because Blair didn’t want Livingstone, Lansley WANTED to get the private healthcare companies more embedded into the NHS. For God’s sake, for years he was “advising” Private health companies. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knows, if he does get forced out, there will be some big money to be made by being on the board of BUPA as a non-executive director. Mrs Hewitt took up similar appointments when her second rate career crashed and burned.

    And above don’t feel sorry for Lansley if his ill-conceived reforms turn out to be a disaster – if he is ever ill he’ll be trotting off to the private sector.

    Save your sorrow for the poor, the chronically ill, who wouldn’t be able to get health insurance for ongoing problems, and any other branch of medicine which the private companies find uneconomic or unappealing for other reasons.

    I hope BTW that Michael Gove, another great twit also leaves government soon – perhaps another expenses “misunderstanding”?

    • Anonymous

      2005/7 UNITE fighting the foundation NHS hospital, I think we have been here before, private hospital to take on Hip and Knee operations, how many did they do for the £3 million spent  ah NONE

      I will accept of course this is Ed Miliband but was it not on Labour list when Burnham stated in December that he could see a place in the NHS for private companies.

      I saw what labour did in the NHS because it happened with me, you can say oh forget the past but of cause to many of the people now on the opposition benches were part of Blair sell off.

      No NHS dentist, like it or not it affected Millions of people and Labour did sod all about it.

      http://labourlist.org/2011/12/burnham-the-nhs-and-private-providers/

      2995/7 Tony Blair
      Foundation Trusts have more power than a normal hospital over the services that are
      available to patients in their area. Their national regulator, Monitor, has advisedbe here seen it  cannot say I believe labour to much.
      Foundation Trusts to stop providing unprofitable treatments where possible and focus
      on the kind of work that will bring them the most money. This is a huge worry for the
      future of the NHS – it could easily lead to a situation where people can’t get the
      operation they need at their local hospital because, as a Foundation Trust, it has
      decided not to offer that treatment.
      Foundation Trusts have also started to set up separate profit-making ventures. They
      have been using various arrangements to get around the law, which stops them from
      carrying out too much private work. For example, the Moorfields Eye Hospital is
      running a franchise in Dubai, and University College London hospital has launched a
      joint venture with the Hospital Corporation of America, which has taken over a wing
      of the London hospital to treat private patients.
      The government has talked of extending the Foundation Trust model still further in
      future, with local health services being turned into Community Foundation Trusts.
      Private companies in secondary care

      In addition to Foundation Trusts, the government is in the middle of the ‘patchwork
      privatisation’ of the NHS. It has bent over backwards to bring private companies into
      the heart of the health service, insisting despite all the evidence that they offer
      greater efficiency.
      The most high profile example in secondary care is the Independent Sector
      Treatment Centre programme, or ISTCs. These are private sector clinics usually
      NHS Support Federation / UNITE – NHS briefing

      • Anonymous

        Believe me, I have no illusions about what New Labour did – I have often made the point on LL that the Coalition has only been able to go so far and so fast on both the NHS and Welfare reforms because of the behaviour of Milburn & Hewitt on the NHS and Brown and Purnell on welfare.

        I do feel that there is an element of hypocrisy for certain Labour figures now to (pretend?) to be so shocked at what is happening, and certainly Andy Burnham has appeared very relaxed about greater private company participation in the NHS. On February 3rd on Any Questions he was making soothing noises about private companies, after the obligatory sound and fury to get the audience to applaud. Today he has offered some sort of compromise – by talking about greater involvement by Doctors (I just hope they don’t involve my GP he works as a single practitoner, and is jaded and bored anyway just waiting to retire!)

        • Anonymous

          It’s that old problem witch labour party will we get if it’s elected, the one we voted for or the one labour thinks we voted for.

        • Anonymous

          Hi Alan, I do object to the setting up of PFI’s; but heard that this was in response to such long waiting lists for people needing major ops, possibly towards the end of the Tory govt in the 90′s.
          That is indeed a really big issue- eg debts and funding.
          Something has to be done about it IMO.

          But- I have to say, I worked in primary care whilst Labour were in power- and resources and commitment was put in over time.
          Also- the Surestart programme was brilliant.
          I think credit where its due- Labour did have a good track record in many areas.

          Last year I spoke to a couple of senior practice nurses, working with GP’s- and the said in their experience-despite the constant demands
          and sometimes pressure- “things had finally got to where they should be” and stability.
          They were utterly dreading the scale of changes
          and didn’t agree one iota with the reforms; in fact- said had never been consulted along the way.
          Also- great concern about area of public health, and possibly health education.

          One locum GP I spoke to,(who works in another practice also;)
          implied dismay, confusion, and said that at that time- she and her colleagues had not been consulted about changes down the track. 

          I think there may be a feeling of resignation but also shock.

          Presumably there are big incentives in place for GP’s-
          and yet still- in a recent poll- about 97% rejected current reforms.
          That can’t possibly be ignored; it’s the GP’s who are planned to be the main commissioners of care?

          I have great concerns and reservations about existing level of skills, time, number of staff, back up in teams, and how care can be delivered in all specialities; joined up management etc.

          Also- it’s been said, private companies may be lining up at the backdoor to offer management and finance advice to GP’s?

          All more opportunities for profit to vested interests;
          emphasis may become more about competition than pure needs based care, by clinical judgement alone.

          One only has to look at the pharmaceutical adverts in GP magazines and journals to see the potential of how this could become.

          We as health visitors were told to limit visits by sales reps,
          even if accepting things like free lunches at all in return
          for freebies and literature on baby milk etc.
          It was seen as slightly unethical.
          We certainly wouldn’t ever promote products
          to clients and patients.
          But would this type of approach open the floodgates,
          and put a lot of pressure on GP-s- not necessarily in the public’s
          interest?

          I think the whole ethos and structure of the NHS
          is at stake- and it’s far too risky to be rushed through
          on purely political grounds.

          J

          • Anonymous

            I know a way in which labour  did not need to go down the PFI route, forget about IT, £18 billion, forget about American wars for Oil, maybe £50 billion, and borrow money within the normal money markets and repay it as we do with all debt and do not sell the NHS into poverty by firms who are going to make Multi million pounds profits.

            We did not build the NHS on PFI, and again yes the NHS was in a mess and it needed refunding sadly not as labour did it, massive increase that the NHS believed was going to be on going, because when labour left power the NHS was again in debt.

  • Anonymous

    lansley comes from the gene pool of tory snobs. unlikely to listen to anyboby of lower case than themselves.and as he comes from the ruling gene that means no bugger .

    • Anonymous

      Tony Blair and his lovely wife, uncrowned Royals, Gordon Brown thought we were all Bigots. Clegg sold out for Power.

      Politician when you sit on those seats in the house or the other place, some how changes people.

      • Anonymous

         what u say is true but blair and broon are history. we,re talking lansley and nhs here. because blair etc were ,nt listening dosn,t make lansley and co excusable.these are the guys to go after now blair and broon are history

  • AmberStar

    It’s a look of fear; the fear of the public finding out he’s a puppet with McKinnsey Consulting’s hand up his ‘ass’. The Mail on Sunday has blown his cover; he’s toast.

    • Anonymous
      • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

        Thanks for the link.

        Looks like government by corporate representatives for the purpose of extending corporate advantage.

        It’s time Ed to disregard the bleatings of Labour’s scallops and celeriac purée /surrender tendency.
        Labour have to go ballistic on this.

        • Anonymous

          Having read the bill in its virtual entirety they have not had value for money for the writing of big chunks of it as it pretty vague and unclear, but aha that is exactly what you want I guess at it allows you maximum exploitation.

        • Anonymous

          We need to know what labour idea of an NHS is, we need to be told what would labour do, no good telling us that it’s safe in our hands they all say this. So tell us what would the NHS look like under the Labour party, because Miliband likes foundation hospitals which is basically giving hospitals the rights to use private firms.

          PFI debt will be the next problem for the NHS.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            My guess is that in order to avoid or postpone difficult policy choices labour will opt for the personality route: claiming Cameron is too stubborn/proud to listen to the people and back down.

            But policies will have to be developed sooner or later and I hope the membership will be allowed significant input. If Jaqui Smith wants to direct a beer and wine offensive in our direction then so much the better, though we won’t be able to offer any non-executive directorships in return.

            But whatever happens, following the economic collapse of 2008 and the subsequent no-growth austerity frenzy that is destroying the U.K.s economy and driving Greece to disaster, it seems to me that the market is a spent force as the mechanism that can deliver governance.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Dave, the other thing is- maybe fear of consequences now it’s got this far down the tracks?
            Maybe pushing this Bill through is seen as the least “worst case scenario?”

            The whole politcal process has obscured the real issues at stake and prevented a more democratic dialogue, at the very least- by planning with staff who know services so well.

            It’s not just about a small select group of GP’s and private companies and one politician deciding the future!

            Jo

          • Anonymous

            You want to see what Wales have put up for changes Joanne, bloody hell we have been called to a meeting at once to discuss my brand new hospital closure. They want to treat all the elderly at home, I already said they you have to put in place a method of feeding them and keeping them warm, because that is why the elderly go to hospital and bed block.

            They said more people can have operations in GPs, not my GP that’s for sure unless your going to use the Toilet, they want the chemist to do more by becoming sort of your Surgery, but they are not doctors.

            But saying we do not need hospital mine is now full to the roof, close it and your going to have to find places for these people and since the Council has closed all it’s nursing homes.

            I was treated in 1964 for TB at home before my brother caught it and I was taken to the old TB hospital where we all coughed our guts up in cold damp rooms with my parents saying he’s not going to make it, my parents sent me to a private hospital where I did make it.

            We are heading for a period in which if your ill you go and see the old women down the road who  has a broom and wears a pointy hat

    • Hamish

      Good spot AmberStar and thanks for the link AlanGiles.
      David Cameron identified the lobbying business as the next big scandal looming after expenses and all that. But he has done precious little to stop it.
      [Amberstar, rather then the American euphemism 'ass', I suggest Shakespearian 'Bottom']

      • Anonymous

        Ass is close to how I see some politician these days large  ears and a funny sound, or is that a donkey

  • Anonymous

    Connor, may I just say ultimately I don’t think this is about AL-
    although he’s a big part of the problem, perhaps.

    It’s also DC and the overall strategy; how “reforms” implemented?
    It calls into question competence and judgement.

    On a personal level, my problem with AL is mainly that he gives the impression
    of owning the NHS and agenda- as if it’s purely his project- and he’s come to “save” it?

    What he’s actually come to do IMO is apply long longed for right wing ideology
    and market forces- as seen elsewhere in the belief that public services
    should be pared down to the minimum; all part of their belief about
    small “state.”

    Thanks, J

    • Anonymous

      Hi Jo, I think what David Cameron needs to remember is that he hasn’t really got a mandate to be Prime Minister, and certainly got no mandate to institute massive reforms of the NHS. I think Lansley just sees a nice amount of personal gain when he finally steps down (or is forced out) of office

      • Anonymous

        Hi Alan, my personal impression is that AL is sincere
        and determined about these reforms; possibly “his baby”
        over some time? (It’s been said about 7 years in the planning.)

        So he’s got a lot to lose if fails, and imposed changes deeply unpopular.
        Also- this appears to be part of the whole
         ”reforming, modernising and progressive” mission-
        maybe similar to the lines of early years of NL?
        (Doesn’t DC see himself as heir to TB?)

        I don’t want to get into a load of speculation about
        personalities; but there does sometimes appear to be
        a copycat element in style- although their own political
        ideology. And the LD’s ultimately enabling them!
        (They are surely in a real bind.)

        There’s maybe a big element of proving itself, setting an agenda,
        being bold, and paving the way for ideology in future years?
        Their big target seems to be public services and the welfare state.
        Same old Tories aka 80′s- only this time, they may be using the cuts
        agenda as cover to justify?

        It must come as an inconvenience that the public have their own views
        and experiences; eg reaction to big business culture, huge bonuses;
        the pay gaps between richer and poorer; the reality of unemployment,
        higher education fees etc.

        It doesn’t quite fit in to the “business as usual”
        mantra- and could all become unstuck, if they don’t wise up,
        show some courage by admitting mistakes made,
        and go back to the drawing board.

        I have to say, I think a lot of sense has been expressed by
        some individuals across all parties- and certainly in the peers.

        The Health committee, for example- appears far more on the ball
        and looking ahead and which areas do actually need attention,
        such as joined up social and health care for the elderly.
        We can all agree on that.

        I think there was an opportunity for cross party talks before the election,
        but was scuppered by the Tories at that point, followed by a poster
        with a gravestone on it- probably scaring the living daylights
        out of elderly people and their families.
        Maybe they imagine this can all be done on the cheap;
        and are fundamentally opposed to any form of collective
        taxation or pool of resources to actually address the real needs?

        They keep saying these reforms are necessary because of an
        “ageing population and more expensive treatments;”
        - but that has always been the case, and there are many ways
        to address this. But it should be a collaborative process,
        consulting with a wide range of professionals and patient groups-
        not a cabale or collusion between vested interests behind closed doors.
        Also, not deliberate misleading of the public; eg
        “no top down reorganization;” “I’ll cut the deficit not the NHS.”

        I also fail to see how anything that is being proposed
        will improve services for the elderly.
        If anything, it could fragment local provision,
        and that combined with cuts to councils -such as
        in day care and home helps, would pare back even further.

        I’m also very worried about cuts to community mental health care
        and specialist services- eg for adolescents and young people.

        As for “more expensive treatments;” again- always the case
        with evolving technologies and advances in healthcare.
        But there are choices to be made, and it’s a question of
        priorities; how delivered?

        Opening up to market based competition between private companies
        for profit does not benefit patients ultimately; ie not driven
        soley by needs based care.
        (Eg high percentage of people with chronic conditions,
        mental health needs, complex overlap of illnesses.)
        They could indeed just cherry pick the easier
        cases.
        The public would have little say over how this would be managed;
        less autonomy, less choice.The reality is now- most people have a choice of about 3 or 4 hospitals when going for in or outpatient care;
        so what greater choices are they talking about?
        What people want are excellent basic services which are universal-
        not a hotchpotch or postcode lottery.
        Also- potential for some hosptitals to close if increased competition.
        How is that better for patients?

        Finally, I don’t believe the vast majority of GP’s or primary care staff
        could work with this successfully over time.
        I would predict many older and experienced GP’s retiring;
        those left having to juggle clinical role with business and budgets;
        less time with patients, more stress than exists already,
        and great burden on whole teams in community.
        Where will the accountability lie, and if mistakes happen-
        how will that be managed?

        Most GP’s I’ve known and worked with have not been trained
        in business management, and are probably worried sick
        about what might be down the line.
        How much have they or all primary care staff been consulted
        in the earlier stages of planning of reforms?

        Sorry to add all of this- but the list is so long- and much being
        expressed elsewhere by professionals and the public;
        one barely knows where to start or end.

        18 months ago- services were running well in prmary care;
        now look at the disruption- and that’s before legislation has even
        been passed.Also, I don’t believe it’s possible to impose
        this extent of changes on staff without winning over hearts and minds-
        and working together every step of the way.

        This is a hugely important organization; to mess things up
        on this scale will be disastrous not just for individual careers
        and parties- but more importantly, for the country and future
        generations.

        Thanks! J

        • Anonymous

          ”
          Hi Alan, my personal impression is that AL is sincere

          and determined about these reforms; possibly “his baby”
          over some time? (It’s been said about 7 years in the planning.)”

          You are kinder than I am Jo. Just look at who he was consorting with and “advising”" in those 7 years.

          I think his sincerity – such as it is, is in his wish to get himself some directorships for services rendered.

          I doubt that he ever uses the NHS – I think he is entirely unprincipled, and given his outside interests the wrong man to be at Health. He is biased towards one side – it is a bit like having Gary Glitter sitting on the board of governers at Barnardos.

          • Anonymous

            Hi Alan, maybe some of these guys just have a different set of principles- eg believing that market forces are the key to
            success; breaking down public services is better for the
            tax payer, etc…..it’s just a mind set.

            They appear to be applying this creed to other areas to like education, welfare, localism- small state, free markets,
            cutting back resources to the bone.

            They may be getting away with it because all in the context of global recession and austerity measures in euope etc- making up a new narrative- and “no choice.”

            How can people themselves have any say or do anything about it? What about staff themselves working on behalf of the public in organizations like hospitals, communities and schools? It seems to me the only workers who are constantly being praised and rewarded by govts are high paid financiers in the city and running stock markets.

            Also this whole bloody divisive political thing about
            public vs private sector worker; I think they are trying to villify and scapegoat one group; it’s a major distraction from how they are really managing things. It’s easier to blame a person or group than take real responsibility for one’s actions.

            What they don’t seem to understand are concepts like universality and equity for all- not just creaming off the system.I think they think just letting mrket forces run their course will look after itself.

            I would have thought after 2008 we would have learnt the salient lessons- applied to all systems.

            But I think they may be so far entrenched after a lifetime of believing all this staff about free markets etc- even when it hits us all in the face- other explanations have to be sought-
            like blaming the public sector and undermining frontline services.And yet, regulation of markets and city practices
            have to be treated like cotton wool.It’s totally inconsistent.

            As for constantly harping on about effects on tax payers, I think that’s just appealing to people’s base instincts and fears.
            (Eg “money in my pocket” etc- even if it means the difference of a few pence or pounds.)
            It’s all very “them and us”- but actually an illusion they wish to create….
            Never mind what the people of this country actually need, based on proven research over decades.

            It’s a very selective agenda.

            I think what needs reform Alan- is the way politics
            (and media in some repects) is done.

            It’s not so much all the individual politicans, it’s the way democratic process is applied, or not?
            They can do it in this way- because the system allows it.

            Perhaps it needs some kind of independent scrutiny also.

            Jo

  • derek

    You can’t hide those “Lansley” eye’s, I thought by now you’d be wise, there aint no way to hide those “Lansley” eye’s  

  • Daniel Speight

    If there is truth in the Mail on Sunday’s report on the relationship between the American McKinsey company and the higher levels of the NHS and the government it suggests something close to illegality has been going on. It also puts a lie to Lansley’s claims that privatization is not a reason for these reforms and Cameron’s claims that he wants to fight lobbying.

    • Anonymous

      I think without doubt the main thrust of all the changes in the NHS even down to Blair has been to open up the NHS to the American market>

       Blair had America on the brain especially I suspect as he saw it as a financial gain to him, Brown not to sure he did have some socialism in his blood, Cameron and his lot I have no doubt what so ever it’s private firms, privatisation. The EU would have loved to have the NHS open up to the EU as well in fact they did push for this and Blair did oblige.

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →