Health in England 'faltering' after 10 years of austerity, warns damning Marmot review

[Northerner]

In a scathing 172-page report published a decade on from his landmark 2010 review, Professor Sir Michael Marmot warns that England's health is 'faltering'.

Continuous improvement in life expectancy throughout the 20th century has 'slowed dramatically, almost grinding to a halt' since 2011, the report warns, while 'life expectancy actually fell in the most deprived communities outside London for women and in some regions for men'.

Time spent in ill health for men and women across the England is increasing - and the 'damage to health and wellbeing is similarly nearly unprecedented' across the four UK nations. Reducing health inequality has not been a priority since 2010 and there has been 'no national strategy' to achieve this, the report warns.

Health in England 'faltering' after 10 years of austerity, warns damning Marmot review

Life expectancy has stalled, patients are living longer in ill health and health inequality has risen after a decade of austerity that will 'cast a long shadow' over the lives of UK children, according to a devastating follow-up to the 2010 Marmot review.

www.gponline.com

(free registration)

 

[mikeyB]

And what is significant about 2010? Yup, the Tories got in and against economic sense, imposed austerity and made the poor and disabled pay for the folly of the bankers. It’s absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, it’s poverty, and working poverty.

Rekatively speaking, wages are now lower than in Victorian times, so we are regressing to Victorian life expectancy, mitigated to a small extent by the NHS, what’s left of it.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Rekatively speaking, wages are now lower than in Victorian times, so we are regressing to Victorian life expectancy, mitigated to a small extent by the NHS, what’s left of it.

News stories have talked about pay falls not encountered since Victorian times, and pay gaps as large as those in Victorian times. I'm not sure that relative wages are now lower than in Victorian times. Any references for that? If it's true, I wonder why (say) The Grauniad doesn't appear when I do a simple web search. That seems like exactly the sort of thing they'd write about.

And life expectancy still seems significantly better (even ignoring infant mortality which has a big impact). How has life expectancy changed over time? shows that for males (in England and Wales) life expectancy once they reach 20 was around 60 in 1841 and was around 80 in 2011. The latest story is that for some poorer women life expectancy Is decreasing. But (while I agree it hardly requires any kind of genius or superforecaster to notice that cutting social services of all kinds, sanctioning people who then become destitute, etc., are pretty obviously stupidly evil things to do, even If they're popular) it seems a stretch to suggest we're regressing to Victorian anything.

 

[trophywench]

Most of us here have most likely never had to try and survive on Universal Credit though …...

 

[Northerner]

News stories have talked about pay falls not encountered since Victorian times, and pay gaps as large as those in Victorian times. I'm not sure that relative wages are now lower than in Victorian times. Any references for that? If it's true, I wonder why (say) The Grauniad doesn't appear when I do a simple web search. That seems like exactly the sort of thing they'd write about.

And life expectancy still seems significantly better (even ignoring infant mortality which has a big impact). How has life expectancy changed over time? shows that for males (in England and Wales) life expectancy once they reach 20 was around 60 in 1841 and was around 80 in 2011. The latest story is that for some poorer women life expectancy Is decreasing. But (while I agree it hardly requires any kind of genius or superforecaster to notice that cutting social services of all kinds, sanctioning people who then become destitute, etc., are pretty obviously stupidly evil things to do, even If they're popular) it seems a stretch to suggest we're regressing to Victorian anything.

For me the simple fact is that you cannot constantly keep bleating on about a 'strong economy' when over a million of your citizens are having to go to food banks to survive - even if they are working - and people are dying or committing suicide because the welfare system has failed them. 'Strong economy' - for whom? And what are the consequences for the future when so many families live hand to mouth?

 

[nonethewiser]

Look at food bank stats, estimates for 2018-2019 suggest one in 50 households used one. Shameful disgusting unacceptable are 3 words come to mind, everything stacking up that austerity has had devastating impact on nations health.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Look at food bank stats, estimates for 2018-2019 suggest one in 50 households used one. Shameful disgusting unacceptable are 3 words come to mind, everything stacking up that austerity has had devastating impact on nations health.

I agree, and the idea that the dramatic increase in food bank usage isn't caused by benefit changes seems obviously delusional. The people who've caused all this have been doing evil, and the arguments used for it (supported by the complicit Liberal Democrats) seem dubious. And the constant refrain of "nobody goes into politics to impose cuts" is just a lie: there's plenty of Conservatives who want the state to provide less.

I'm just suggesting that I doubt it's the case that current wages are now lower than those in Victorian times, or that we're heading towards Victorian life expectancy. (It's more like we're heading towards 1973, Brexit triumph as life expectancies get closer to what they were before the UK joined the EU.)