In her most recent article, Professor Francesca Gains contends that DevoManc is “an idea whose time has come” and that any opposition “underplays” the combined authority’s years of hard work.
With the greatest respect to Prof Gains, her arguments overlook the reality of Manchester’s situation. The facts are as follows:
In 2012, David Cameron stated that the issue of mayors was one that had to be decided by the people. Rightly or wrongly, Mancunians voted against a Mayor for the city council.
Sir Richard Leese, ironically, declared that the referendum result was a “very clear rejection” by the people of Greater Manchester and, irrespective of the outcome he was ready to keep representing the wishes of voters.
In fact, a recent survey found that in Leese’s own ward of Crumpsall, over 80% of his constituents hadn’t even heard of devo-manc, with 76% arguing that devolution to a North West regional assembly would be a much better option.
A precedent has been set and to ignore the people on this occasion makes a farce of our democracy. No ifs, no buts.
Secondly, and, most importantly, Prof Gains ignores the involvement of George Osborne. One thing is for certain: George Osborne’s plans are far from altruistic.
Prof Gains argues that Scotland’s referendum has forced the devolution genie “well and truly out of the bottle”. But given that 84.6% of Scots turned out to vote for independence, devo-manc is more like George Osborne brutally murdering the genie and then dressing up in his clothes.
Take the sham devolution of Manchester’s £6bn healthcare budget, for instance. Firstly, without tax-raising powers, this measure keeps Whitehall firmly in control. We know that this government is ideologically opposed to healthcare free at the point of delivery. So, what happens to the people of Greater Manchester when policymakers decide to enforce further austerity measures? As Richard Humphries of the King’s Fund stated: “the words ‘poisoned’ and ‘chalice’ perhaps spring to mind.”
Make no mistakes; offering control over the £6bn budget is a staging point for privatisation. As soon as Whitehall cuts funding (and it will), then blame will be placed solely on the shoulders of Manchester’s local politicians. In fact, Manchester has just announced £45 million worth of new cuts, signed off by devo-manc architect and Salford Mayor, Ian Stewart. When does it end?
This is corroborated by a Greater Manchester Consultant Surgeon, who, wishing to remain nameless, states that “health & social care funding is already drastically underfunded and due to be drastically reduced. By pushing responsibility onto local authorities, central government will get off the hook for massive cuts. Greater Manchester is in the middle of a huge and highly controversial “reconfiguration”, in which 4 to 5 hospitals are to lose their A&Es or other acute services. The new regional local government will have this mess dumped in their laps.”
In addition, Prof Gains asserts that elected mayors are the right option, their visibility meaning that “the public knows whom to hold to account”. These sentiments have been echoed many times, but when will people let go of this ridiculous idea? Does Boris Johnson ring any bells?
A modern Elagabalus (I’m sure he would approve of the reference), Johnson has proven to be catastrophic as London Mayor. Not only does he run the Western World’s most financially unequal city, he has also failed spectacularly on the vast majority of his manifesto promises. Indeed, Johnson’s notoriety has propelled him to become the most popular politician in the country, a walking sideshow of everything that is wrong with British politics and whose visibility is the sole reason as to a lack of public scrutiny concerning his position.
Prof Gains goes on to quote Bill de Blasio, who states that in New York, ‘every neighbourhood gets a fair shot’. Given that Manhattan, one of the wealthiest boroughs in the US and the home of Wall Street, borders the Bronx, one of the poorest, such statements are obviously false.
Gains then states that mayors are in prime position to engage in “lobbying” for their city. This, at least, is true. Johnson, for example, lobbies a lot for his city. The City, to be precise. Between 2008-2011, Johnson had 86 meetings with bankers and the financial services industry. In the same period, he held only 15 meetings with ordinary Londoners.
It is evident, therefore, that having an elected mayor is not some kind of panacea for the ills of modern cities and that Greater Manchester would be far better served by simply consulting the public on what they want. Time and time again, both local politicians and academics alike cheerlead for the erosion of our most basic democratic principles.
However, devo-manc is the tip of the iceberg and part of a much wider plan to undermine democratic accountability in the North. Take Barton Moss, for example, a fracking site where dangerously high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been found. Yet these findings were ignored by mainstream media outlets, alongside the widespread accusations of police brutality surrounding demonstrations at the site. As a consequence, the Greater Manchester Association of Trade Councils (GMATUC) stated, “the citizens of Greater Manchester…have directly lost confidence in the police because of this episode”.
Similarly, solicitor, Simon Pook, remarked that Greater Manchester Police appeared “to have discarded the European Convention of Human Rights into the gutter, and replaced it with political policing, re-enforced with overt aggression.” Prof Gains, much like many prominent commentators, has failed to understand that devo-manc is the gateway to a dark and worrying future, one in which the rights and opinions of ordinary people are completely overlooked.
Glad to see at the bottom that it is stated that you are a Labour party operative. Pretty clear from the biased, partisan tone you use through the “article”. Lets take just one statement – “We know that this government is ideologically opposed to healthcare free at the point of delivery.” Do we know that. Can you tell me if it is still free to see your local GP today? It is. That is after nearly 5 years of this Government, so much for not wanting free at the point of delivery.
The Conservatives have been in Government for the majority of the NHS’s existence (an inconvenient truth for you) and during that time it has stayed as a free at the point of use service. That iwll not change. Yes there is some “privatisation”, although not on the scale the previous Labour Government and Andy Burnham instigated. Kettle. Pot. Black.
Labour are just annoyed that the Conservatives are being one nation and are trying to help rebalance the economy and helping the North.
Hello there,
1) I haven’t been a Labour party supporter for a while now and the Chair of Campaign for the North is a former Tory MP. I also criticise Sir Richard Leese (Labour Party) in the fourth paragraph. So, your argument is fairly redundant from the start. Nevertheless, I will press on.
2) Just because the current government hasn’t managed to privatise a national institution within a 5 year period, it doesn’t mean that it’s not opposed to healthcare free at the point of delivery (by the way, note that there is a difference between a government and a party. Not once do I actually criticise the Conservative Party. The current government is, as I’m sure you’re aware, a coalition between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. However, you seem to conflate disdain for the government with disdain for the Tory party, which is quite ironic, given the fact that so many Conservative MPs are actually opposed to Cameron’s government).
However, back to the point at hand. Prior to the 2010 General Election, David Cameron promised that his government would “cut the deficit, not the NHS”. In total, his government has pledged to cut £70bn from the NHS budget.
Please read ‘Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party’, it was co-authored by Jeremy Hunt (ring any bells?), Daniel Hannan, Michael Gove and Greg Clark. The book describes the NHS as “no longer relevant in the 21st century”.
So, to conclude, the coalition government may not have come out a unanimously stated “we are against healthcare free at the point of delivery”, but you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to work out that they’re dismantling the NHS.
3) Sorry to be pedantic but it’s ‘Pot. Kettle. Black’ not “Kettle. Pot. Black”.
Best Wishes,
Michael
Thanks for your responses which seem to be in the same angry vain as your article. You may not have been a Labour supporter for some time but the bottom fo the article says “He has worked in Finance, Government Relations and was previously on the Executive Committee for the Labour Campaign for Human Rights.” One of the key words is Labour – so a pretty reasonable assumption that you are a Labour supporter (maybe not current as you say).
Maybe you are a Conservative supporter since you seem to know that some Conservative MP’s are not supporters of the Conservative led (Labour’s term) Government. Also the conflation of Conservative and Coalition is easy to make since the Conservatives do indeed lead the Government.
Now lets get to some policy – you say ” David Cameron promised that his government would “cut the deficit, not the NHS”. ” And indeed the deficit has been cut in half (fact) and the NHS budget has been ring fenced and has not been cut in either absolute cash terms or in inflation terms (or as % of GDP). So your argument Could more be spent on the NHS, of course but that will always be the case. is ?
I am also glad that you accept that you cannot say that “the coalition government may not have come out a unanimously stated “we are against healthcare free at the point of delivery”,” That was your original statement that I queried. Glad we have cleared that up. Also you will recall that Labour has made this charge repeatedly – in 1987 Kinnock vs Thatcher and in 1992 Kinnock vs Major and each time it was false as shown by history.
1) You don’t have to be a supporter of the Conservative Party to know that the Tories are experiencing internal turmoil over Europe, with one faction being opposed to the EU and the other being pro. This is national news, not insider information.
2) Easy to conflate the two, perhaps. But when you critique my argument, don’t expect me to not pick up on school boy errors. This is a political blog, not Facebook. If you can’t deal with your argument being taken apart, then don’t comment.
3) False: the deficit has not been cut in half. Please read: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/how-osbornes-claim-of-having-halved-the-deficit-backfired/
4) False: Ring fencing a budget doesn’t mean there aren’t cuts being made in real terms. Please looks up the ‘Nicholson Challenge’, whereby £20bn of ‘efficiency savings’ are being made.
5) My argument was never that the NHS budget should be increased. Please avoid fabricating my arguments.
6) My original statement was that “we know”. We know through evidence that this government is opposed to healthcare free at the point of delivery. Read a newspaper, speak to a doctor, contact the BMA, speak to a nurse. I stand by the original statement that this government is opposed to healthcare free at the point of delivery. Nothing that you have said otherwise has disproven this.
Right, lets take these in order.
1) You never mentioned Europe in your original comment (“given the fact that so many Conservative MPs are actually opposed to Cameron’s government”). I agree there are differences in opinion on Europe (although not as great as in 1992, since the pro-European wing has been reduced). Both major parties are a broad church – otherwise how could Jeremy Corbin and Tony Blair have been MP’s for the same party at the same time?
2. I am happy to have this dialogue, not sure why you think I don`t like having my argument “taken apart” It seems to be you, who having written an article on a blog with a comment function seems to be taken aback if people question some of your assertions.
3. Not cut in half in cash amounts, but cut in half as % of GDP. Score draw there. I agree it should have been cut further, but Labour did complain about cutting to fast (wanted to follow the Hollande approach).
4. True, I understand Labour policy is for GBP2-3 billion extra on NHS spending from the “Mansion tax”. If under the Conservatives there is a GBP20 billion efficiency drive then does this mean a GBP17-18 billion efficiency drive under Labour. If so not exactly a huge difference. and it undercuts the current poster campaign. Which brings us onto #6
6. What a fatuous argument. In spite of 60 years of historical record that assertion that “we know there will be an end to the NHS” and free at the point of delivery service is extraordinary. Of course it cannot be rebuked because it will always happen “next time”. Some-one could stupidly say Labour will increase income tax to 80% next time. You could never say no in-spite of the historical record because it would be 2015-2020, or the parliament after or the one after that.
The Government maintained (actually increased in cash terms) the NHS budget, which is commendable at a time of inheriting a GBP150 billion deficit (bigger than the NHS budget). Labour say they will spend slightly more – equivalent to 1-2%. If the NHS was under such a threat then surely they should promise more?
The irony of all this back and forth between us is that I agree on the main point regarding the election of a Mayor and its defeat a few years ago.
1) Not taken aback by discussion at all, but object to being called a “Labour operative” and a hypocrite, “Kettle.Pot.Black”, as you so put it.
You make a lot of errors in your arguments and later correct them. This is what I mean by being ‘taken apart’.
2) Hardly fatuous when you have Doctors establishing parties such as the NHA and the BMA giving a vote of no confidence for the Health Secretary.
The opinion that this government is opposed to healthcare free at the point of delivery is a widely-held view in the medical community. You can quote government-backed statistics all you want, but that convinces very few people.
Even go back to 2007 with the Dorrell Report when a former Conservative Secretary of State for Health produced a report calling for those with unhealthy lifestyles to be denied NHS treatment.
You are kidding yourself if you think this government believes and will continue to uphold healthcare free at the point of delivery.
I do look forward, for political balance, for a Conservative spokesman to write an article on this site.
You seem to have taken up that mantle already. Why don’t you write something?
I am perfectly fine commenting on articles. We are not all destined to be writers.
Quite disgusting to see a Labour supporter in Greater Manchester opposing devolution, and therefore leaving all the control in London.
Ask yourself, who’s more likely to privatise the NHS in Greater Manchester? The neo-con Tories in government, or the Labour leaders in Greater Manchester?
We need more say over our lives. Scotland has shown us the way and Greater Manchester now needs to do the same.
He does like to be called a Labour supporter although it states at the bottom of his article “He has worked in Finance, Government Relations and was previously on the Executive Committee for the Labour Campaign for Human Rights.” So he must have been at one time a Labour supporter and I expect he will be this time.
I think you need to pipe down now. You’ve already proven yourself incapable of constructing a coherent argument and you’re continuing to fabricate my position on certain topics.