The Anatomy of a Lie: Cameron’s NHS Smear Campaign Exposed

17th July, 2013 8:58 am

It really wasn’t meant to be like this. With recess approaching, the Tory machine hatched a strategy for the parliamentary break based upon their weakest area: the NHS. Misguided and foolhardy, two weeks ago the Tory spinners briefed the Mail and the Telegraph of their intention to ‘target Burnham.’ So far, so good.

It didn’t matter that David Cameron had told the House of Commons during his statement responding to the Francis Review in February that Francis “…does not blame the last Secretary of State for Health and he says that we should not seek scapegoats.” Facts like this and other inconvenient truths are nothing more than barnacles to get off the boat.

Of course, the Keogh Review was always going to be the vehicle for the plot to ‘target Burnham’ and postponing its publication until two days before Parliament rises always part of the campaign strategy.

Sadly for les incompetents in the Tory briefing machine, the week prior to the publication of the Keogh Review proved to be rather uncomfortable. First, a shame-faced Secretary of State shook at the dispatch box as he tried to sneak out ward closures, including the A&E at Trafford General Hospital – the birthplace of the NHS – without telling any of the local MPs affected. The ineffective Jeremy Hunt was giving a ‘doing’ as his mendacity was exposed.

No sooner had the sound of barnacle scraping stopped before, on the following day, a U-turn was announced to the Commons on the government’s proposed plain cigarette packaging proposals. In a series of tweets, popular Tory MP Sarah Wollaston wrote: ‘What a tragic waste of an opportunity. ‘Barnacles scraped off the boat’ AKA more lives ruined for political expediency…R.I.P. Public Health. A day of shame for this government; the only big winners big tobacco, big alcohol and big undertakers.’ Quite the tawdry mess.

Diane Abbot nailed the Tory U-turn and shone a light on David Cameron’s latest hand-picked Chief Advisor (Coulson, anyone?) Lynton Crosby, and his widely alleged connections with the tobacco lobby. Cancer Research UK responded furiously to the decision and said that “lives would be lost as a result” of the choice to delay. Yet again people were entitled to ask, just what compels Jeremy Hunt to take orders from rich Australians and is there a special interest that he actually can resist? It wasn’t meant to be like this for the wallaby wannabe, but here the Tories were again, caught in a mess of their own making. Desperate times called for truly desperate measures; project ‘target Burnham’ stepped up a notch.

Last weekend, the Tory briefing machine was out in force in the Sunday papers, predictably trailing that today’s Keogh Review would ‘this week show that 14 hospital trusts have been responsible for up to 13,000 “excess deaths” since 2005.’ (Telegraph)

Much of the broadcast media took the message, salivated over it and repeated it ad nauseum. The Tories spun for their lives and a largely supine media followed suit.

Whilst they were waiting for the Keogh Review to be published and for their recess campaign to be rolled out, the Tories met on Monday night in Committee Room 19 of the House of Commons to discuss ‘target Burnham’. So splendidly well did they think their smear campaign was going that ten brave head bangers souls, put their names to a letter published in the Telegraph calling for Andy Burnham’s resignation. The letter read:

‘…Baroness Young and others now explain, the CQC was under “political pressure” not to expose failure – pressure which the Baroness said increased when current Labour Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, was in office.’

Unbeknown to this hardy lot – because Downing Street clearly didn’t tell them or their smear machine – Barbara Young had already written to David Cameron politely pointing out that such claims were bogus and that he had been ‘misled’.

The Baroness wrote:

‘During my time as Chairman, CQC was not pressurised by the previous Government to tone down its regulatory judgments or to hide quality failures…So I am afraid neither my evidence to the Francis Inquiry nor my current recollection of CQC’s experience under the previous Government can be interpreted to support the view that in the words of your answer at PMQs “there was a culture under the previous Government of not revealing problems in the NHS.” How can this misapprehension best be corrected for the record?’

Ouch. It wasn’t meant to be like this.

Undeterred, the Tory spinners sat and waited for the publication of the Keogh Review and the awaited vindication of their spin. Sadly, someone hadn’t read the script and wrote to Professor Sir Bruce Keogh as a result of the assertions about his review in the Telegraph piece. Out of the blue, Sir Bruce responded…

‘Not my calculations, not my views. Don’t believe everything you read, particularly in some newspapers.

Then, eventually, the report landed and it made grim reading for the Tory smear squad. Professor Keogh prefaced his excellent report – accepted by Labour in full – with a letter to Jeremy Hunt that will have made for excruciating reading for the hapless Health Secretary. Professor Keogh wrote:

‘The NHS embodies the social conscience of our country. Every week, our NHS positively transforms the lives of millions of people and we should be deeply proud of this fact. Sadly, there are times when the NHS falls well short of what patients and the public rightly deserve.’

‘We found pockets of excellent practice in all 14 of the trusts reviewed. However, we also found significant scope for improvement, with each needing to address an urgent set of actions in order to raise standards of care.’

Who could disagree? Then, the hammer blows:

‘Between 2000 and 2008, the NHS was rightly focused on rebuilding capacity and improving access after decades of neglect. The key issue was not whether people were dying in our hospitals avoidably, but that they were dying whilst waiting for treatment.’

It didn’t end there. The Professor took the spin and smears head on:

‘However tempting it may be, it is clinically meaningless and academically reckless to use such statistical measures to quantify actual numbers of avoidable deaths. Robert Francis himself said, ‘it is in my view misleading and a potential misuse of the figures to extrapolate from them a conclusion that any particular number, or range of numbers of deaths were caused or contributed to by inadequate care.’

For good measure, he then reminded the Secretary of State that Labour had begun an improvement programme to address the issues outlined in his review before leaving office:

‘In 2008, Lord Darzi set out a comprehensive strategy for improving quality.’

It wasn’t meant to be like this. It really wasn’t.

Away from the smear campaign, Professor Keogh’s review, like the Francis reviews instigated by Andy Burnham, is an important effort to improve care for all those who use it. It should be welcomed. In this debate, the patients best interests should determine everything that politicians do.

Cameron’s awful reality is that he is his own biggest problem on the NHS: the public just doesn’t trust him. Nor should it.

The smears will doubtless continue. In David Cameron’s war on Labour’s growing poll lead on the NHS, the first casualty is the truth.

Jamie Reed is a Shadow Health Minister

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Michael Carey

    Granted, but what of Labour’s experiment with foundation hospitals? The Mid Staffs report mentioned the cuts and inefficiencies generated by that little wheeze as one of the reasons for its problems. Will Labour repudiate its own marketisations?

    • Steve pleb Walker

      Burnham has, and publicly. I was at a meeting recently where he was speaking, and he admitted readily that New Labour had gone too far in allowing the market into the NHS – a situation he wants to correct.

  • David Battley

    Mr Reed makes some strong points, which I freely admit have altered my view of the situation. However, I feel he has, intentionally or otherwise, missed out part of the story: during the debate yesterday, Mr Hunt said:

    “Mr Hunt: My hon. Friend knows that the Labour party refused 81 requests for a public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs—I repeat: 81 requests. He also knows that if it was not for that public inquiry, we would not be here now. That is the biggest lesson to learn about the benefits of a public inquiry, and that is why transparency matters. I hope he is also pleased that we will be having a debate on the Francis report in Government time later this year.” (Hansard 16 July 2013 : Column 934)

    If these are all “simply lies and smears”, why were these requests made, and what basis was there for ignoring them? it seems there are wheels within wheel on this story, and neither side is offering the public any more than a shrill “noise” that does no-one any favours.

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      As I understand it, Burnham set up the first Francis and said there’d be a second one. It actually started under the Coalition though.

      Where does that 81 requests come from? What constitutes a request?

    • Steve pleb Walker

      81 requests is not actually very many. I’d imagine a big issue that would immediately be seen as requiring one would generate hundreds or thousands. I’m sure you could find 81 people to complain about pretty much anything.

      • David Battley

        I don’t think complaints from individual members of the public constitute a “request for public enquiry”, but I would be very happy to be corrected on that.

  • Chrisso

    Excellent article. I am biased though, Andy Burnham is my excellent constituency MP 🙂

  • Plato

    What hilarious nonsense ‘Rich Australians’ !!!!!!!!!! Boo Hiss.

    I expect better from LabourList than this pantomine silliness.

    • reformist lickspittle

      Yes, I too much prefer the heaven of reasoned debate that is 😉

    • Tubby_Isaacs

      There are some rather serious points made as well

  • RedMiner

    The smear campaign against the NHS: recycling myths, distortion, misinformation, and outright lies, is precisely the same tactic as that used against unemployment and disability to dismantle social security. For the latter, defence relied on numerous enthusiastic amateur bloggers and disability campaigners, an unequal struggle against the massed tabloid and tax-dodger funded Tories, especially as the cowardly Labour Party failed to defend our inheritance.

    Perhaps with the NHS they’ll find the stomach for a battle.

  • Carolekins

    Tories have been completely disgraceful on this: lies, misinformation, distortion. Who exactly are they hoping to persuade? A cave-dweller, who hasn’t seen the light of day for 10 years? Nye Bevan’s description springs to mind.

    • Kate Vasey

      That is my absolute favourite political quote – they ARE vermin.

  • London Calling

    I think that you can only justifiably dismiss the criticism as ‘smears’ if the Labour ‘spin machine’ would not have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. This I can’t believe.

    Put simply, ministers should be held to account for what happens on their watch. Therefore the criticism is justified.

  • Pingback: Jeremy Hunt and the anatomy of treason. | Christopher Patrick Ross()

  • Pingback: Is the Tory attack on the NHS justified? | Paul Goodman and Jamie Reed - newspapertimes()

  • JoeDM

    A disgraceful Labour List attempt to divert attention away from a major NHS scandal.

    Under a Labour Government poor performing hospitals up and down the country caused tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths through lack of care and poor quality of nursing.

    The attempt to try and divert attention and play down this issue by Labour is utterly shameful.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    Don’t forget the PFI schemes either. Most of these hospitals wouldn’t be in half as much trouble if they weren’t paying over the odds for their buildings.

  • “the Labour party refused 81 requests”

    I am a member of the Labour Party and no one asked me. In fact, it was not “the Labour Party” it was the Department of Health to whom any requests were made. As ever Hunt politicises the issue and does it badly. The man is a poor minister and a poor politician.

  • The Tories are trying to create a diversion from the scandal of 8,000 nurses lost in the last 3 years at a time hen the NHS is desperately trying to meet demand. Don’t forget that in the West Midlands ALL the hospitals in the region said that A&E is close to collapse. Collapse due to government cuts in tariff (1.5% cuts three years in a row from a prime Minister who said he would not cut the NHS). That is the scandal that needs to be addressed.

  • Pingback: Tory MPs Attempt To Smear Andy Burnham But With Limited Success | ukgovernmentwatch()

  • Pingback: Baroness Young's furious letter: a Conservative smear campaign against Andy Burnham unravels - Socialist Health Association()


LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends