Thatcher pushed for breakup of welfare state despite NHS pledge

Margaret Thatcher secretly tried to press ahead with a politically toxic plan to dismantle the welfare state even after a “cabinet riot” and her famous declaration that the “NHS is safe with us”, newly released Treasury documents show.

The plan commissioned by Thatcher and her chancellor Sir Geoffrey Howe included proposals to charge for state schooling, introduce compulsory private health insurance and a system of private medical facilities that “would, of course, mean the end of the National Health Service”.

Some of her cabinet ministers believed they had buried the plan, drawn up by a seconded Treasury official, Alan Bailey, from the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS), at a special cabinet meeting on 9 September 1982.

Nigel Lawson in his memoirs said the paper of “long-term public spending options” had been buried after what he described as “the nearest thing to a cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration”. In her own memoirs, Thatcher claimed to have been “horrified” by the CPRS paper and insisted that she and her ministers had never seriously considered it.

The CPRS paper had been partially leaked and she was only able to quell the subsequent furore by famously pledging the “NHS is safe with us” at the October 1982 Tory party conference. Downing Street briefed that the toxic plan had been “shelved”.

Photograph: Handout

But Howe’s Treasury private office papers released by the National Archives on Friday confirm that not only had that special cabinet meeting taken place to discuss the plan but that two months later, far from being buried, Thatcher was still secretly trying to press ahead with it.

The Treasury papers show that once a clutch of tricky byelections were out of the way she was keen to keep pushing the plan and held a series of meetings in December to “to soften up the big three spenders” under her chairmanship “to resolve any immediate political anxieties”.

The papers also show after the 9 September cabinet showdown Howe rejected an approach from the Adam Smith Institute, the rightwing libertarian thinktank, to back their “slightly oddly-named Omega Project” despite it being personally endorsed by Thatcher’s own economic adviser, Sir Alan Walters.

The Omega Project papers said the plans were modelled on research by a rightwing US thinktank for the incoming Ronald Reagan administration. It also argued for many state services to be replaced by “more efficient alternatives from the private sector”.

Photograph: HM Treasury

Howe rejected the approach in a note on 29 September not because he objected to their proposals to dismantle the welfare state but because he feared its “ill-researched proposals, which will be portrayed as strongly resembling our own, might prove an embarrassment”. The then chancellor added: “Every proposal will be seized on and hung (round) our necks. Cf CPRS Report. I see v. (underlined twice) great harm.”

The Treasury papers show that “no real action” was taken on the CPRS “radical right manifesto” until November 1982. “The prime minister (we understand privately) did not want to stir this up before the cabinet discussions on the 1982 survey, nor risk any adverse publicity while the last two byelections were pending. The leaks of the CPRS report did not help,” a senior Treasury official, Peter Mountfield, told Howe in a confidential note entitled “Follow-up of cabinet discussion on long-term public expenditure”.

Margaret Thatcher secretly continued to pursue the politically explosive plans even after ministers thought they had been killed off by a cabinet revolt. Photograph: PA

“The prime minister has arranged a series of meetings with the main spending ministers to discuss the follow-up to the discussion in cabinet on 9 September. The ministers involved are Sir Keith Joseph (7 Dec, 11 am), Mr Fowler and Mr Nott (14 Dec, 9.30 and 15 Dec 5.30.). You and the chief secretary will be invited to each meeting.”

Joseph was education secretary, Norman Fowler was health secretary and John Nott was defence secretary. The CPRS paper proposed to cancel Trident and halt the growth in defence spending.

“The only paper formally before the meetings will be the original interdepartmental report on long-term trends in public expenditure … The CPRS paper on options is technically a non-paper, but will be in everyone’s minds (and no doubt in their briefing folders too),” Mountfield told Howe.

The chancellor was told the objective of the meetings was “designed to soften up the three big spenders. Without their support the operation will not work. Your main aim, I suggest, should be to ensure that no sacred cows are prematurely identified. Given the prime minister’s concern about the NHS, this may be difficult. But we want to make sure that the ministers concerned do not close off any options at this stage, and, if possible, put their personal weight behind the exercise.’’

Photograph: HM Treasury

These papers flatly contradict Thatcher’s claim that the CPRS proposals were never seriously considered by ministers. The Treasury files released on Friday do not record what happened at the meetings with the big three spenders.

But a Treasury official’s note on 28 October 1982 to the then chief secretary to the Treasury, Leon Brittan, gave an indication of the depth of internal opposition Howe and Thatcher faced. “DHSS (health and social security) officials say there is no chance that Mr Fowler would agree to a further study of this idea. I imagine in the circumstances, and especially given the prime minister’s speech at Brighton it is difficult to press them.”

In his memoirs, Howe reflects that although the row had postponed the “fundamental debate” he had hoped to start, until after the 1983 general election, “nothing from the Treasury’s point of view is ever as quite as bad as it seems”.

He reported that the impact of what he called the “CPRS furore” had ensured ministers made no new spending pledges and had “set the pace for our forthcoming 1983 manifesto”.

Thatcher pushed for breakup of welfare state despite NHS pledge

Competitors authorities water down personal hospital break-up plans

Stephen Collier, chief executive of BMI Healthcare, who had previously criticised the competition authorities’ evaluation of the sector, welcomed the selection, saying the CMA’s predecssor, the CC, had “engaged openly with us and with our arguments and evidence, to reach a sensible, measured and honest conclusion”.

The US-based group is understood to be furious and has vowed to “vigorously challenge” the selection in the courts.

Mike Neeb, President and CEO of HCA Worldwide, sharply criticised analysis carried out by the CMA’s predecessor, the Competition Commission, saying it “handled the hugely complex healthcare method as a commodity market place, focusing nearly exclusively on cost and overlooking the importance of quality”.

“In failing to take into account our investment, the mix of patients we treat, and the complicated procedures we carry, the CMA has drawn inaccurate conclusions about HCA International’s pricing – some thing which we strongly refute and will of program be demanding,” he added.

Mr Need mentioned the competition authorities have been ordering the promote off of hospitals that it legally acquired, in the case of the London Bridge “with explicit approval by the OFT”.

Keith Biddlestone, HCA’s group business director, on Tuesday stated he was confident the group had “each likelihood of receiving a distinct outcome” from taking the choice to the Competitors Appeals Tribunal.

Competitors authorities concluded last August that charges for insured patients are too high because a lot of private hospitals face small competitors in neighborhood areas across the Uk, but personal healthcare bosses derided their evaluation as flawed.

Mr Collier in January argued that rising competitors would not lower prices due to the fact the fees currently reflect the charges of providing private healthcare.

At the time he accused competition authorities of “massively undervaluing” the investment necessary to offer “higher good quality personal healthcare”, saying the analysis suggested that “hospitals must be valued as if they stood in farmers’ fields”.

Competitors authorities water down personal hospital break-up plans

Private hospital groups braced for break-up ruling

“We are hunting forward to possessing a different referee [in the Competition Appeals Tribunal] and we think we have each likelihood of getting a distinct game and distinct end result,” he explained.

Stephen Collier, boss of BMI, in January vowed to get “whatever actions are proper to guarantee [competitors authorities] do not undermine our organisation”.

“[Any choice requiring divestments] is going to go through a variety of legal difficulties and it is most likely going to get drawn out to an extent because the groups will battle to avoid it,” stated Philip Blackburn, economist at healthcare consultancy Laing &amp Buisson.

Competition authorities concluded in August that charges for insured individuals are also large because many private hospitals encounter tiny competition in local locations across the Uk, but personal healthcare bosses have derided their analysis as flawed.

Mr Collier has argued that rising competitors will not reduce charges because the expenses already reflect the expenses of providing private healthcare.

He has accused competitors authorities of “massively undervaluing” the investment necessary to give “higher top quality personal healthcare”, saying the examination suggested that “hospitals ought to be valued as if they stood in farmers’ fields”.

Paul Saper, chief executive of wellness consultancy LCS Global stated the competition inquiry, which started 3 many years in the past, had currently achieved important alter in the industry and questioned the need for authorities to demand the sale of all 9 hospitals as outlined in January, especially since any such order is likely to outcome in legal action. “The competition authorities have acquired to be sensible about what they conclude,” he said.

A single in eight Britons is presently a member of a private health insurance scheme.

Private hospital groups braced for break-up ruling

Pals have assisted me to get a daily life once more following my marriage breakup

‘I don’t want to appear back on a daily life not shared with the folks I love.’

Pals. Right up until not too long ago, I’m ashamed to say, I got lazy with them, saw them only when I felt on best form, and usually cancelled plans due to the fact I couldn’t rouse myself enough to be great organization. But then I had to call on my buddies and worth them once much more. I had no choice since, as I tried to detach from R, I realised I needed to farm out my difficulties, open up my house, share the ache and the joy with much more than just 1 recipient.

An afternoon walking on the seafront, with the wind whipping the breaking waves into frothy beer, is about as good as it gets. I am here with friends, most new and a couple I have known for years, and R is at house looking right after the young children.

George – a man I have just met – asks me what I do. I am never very positive how to answer this, as practically nothing I do feels as if I’ve been at it for long ample to validate my response. “I write,” I inform him, and he is a author also, though far far more established than I am.

I often wonder how my existence would be if I would gone for the factors I’d wished earlier on in my existence. Would I be like George, with many years of ability and knowledge and the self-assurance to go forward without fear of not succeeding? Any person who is effective will have dealt with healthier dents to the ego, but how do they brush these off? I am gradually learning that somebody saying “No thank you” is not the worst factor in the planet.

Once I needed every little thing to be “Yes” and “All correct”, considering that these affirmations had been a sign that my existence was greatest left alone, and I could stay away from dealing with the ache that not hearing “yes” would deliver.

When I feel about it in a optimistic way, failure is just getting advised to try out yet again, due to the fact yet again usually means you are going to be performing something various, nevertheless massive or small. It does not indicate creating a self-assassination of character, or damning almost everything about oneself and saying: “Give up now, for chrissakes. The planet thinks I am shit, so best go back to bed.”

“This is not what I planned,” is anything I frequently hear in my head. “What?” (I conveniently have a provocateur in my head as effectively, who answers all my “woe is me” declarations.) “The alcoholic husband and the kids who never go to bed when asked, and the not-so-salubrious deal with and the not-so-glamorous day job? Lifestyle is never ever ideal, so did you truthfully think that adulthood would yield to all of your dreams, whims and desires? Get a existence!”

Just lately, buddies have helped me to get a lifestyle yet again, and the things I have located out about myself have been far a lot more helpful and enlightening than the factors I’ve found out about R. All the snooping I’ve been performing close to him has not proved fruitful in relation to my progress, or without a doubt his.

Fripperies – when did I unlearn the joy of voicing the factors I wished? Lots of close friends and men and women whom I admire do, and it isn’t going to make them spoilt or shallow in my eyes. I would like to have a grand shed at the bottom of my backyard the place I can perform in solitude, with a sofa and a desk and properly-framed photos lining the walls. I’d like R to be back in the loved ones residence, striving for a sober existence, but I realise probably not always obtaining it. I want to be robust adequate to be able to deal with that and not let it wreck my days, with buddies to contact on when the shit comes down.

But most of all, I would like to acknowledge that if I can go forward in my life doing the things that I know will much better my predicament – rather than sitting on my laurels waiting for modify – then items will maintain moving on. I want to be better equipped to call on pals in the not-so-excellent, sometimes-genuinely-crap-and-out-of-handle times that make sleep seem like a luxury. To not get to 80 and search back at a existence not shared with the men and women I adore, and as a result not lived significantly at all.

Thanks, George. Perhaps you and I can be friends? You were truly kind and cool, and gave me suggestions on the ideal garden sheds, and you informed me the a single point that I’ve heard a million instances presently, but have only extremely lately been capable to consider on board: to discover to live with rejection.

If I can discover the power and the courage to clear the pointless blockades along the road, the ones with indicators saying “Cease AT NO” or “Turn BACK” or “HOLD ON TO RESENTMENT”, then I reckon I’ll be winning.

Pals have assisted me to get a daily life once more following my marriage breakup