More babies are dying under Labour

The statistics are beyond dispute, and are published by the government:

For the latest three-year average period, 2001–03, the infant mortality rate (for all babies with father’s occupation stated) was 5.0 deaths per 1,000 live births, and the rate for those in ‘routine and manual’ groups was 6.0 per 1,000. This was higher than the rates for those in the ‘managerial and professional’ (3.5 per 1,000) and ‘intermediate’ (4.7 per 1,000) groups.

The infant mortality rate among the ‘routine and manual’ group was 19% higher than for the total population in 2001–03, compared with 13% higher in the baseline period of 1997–99.

Dawn Primarolo says it is difficult to change health inequalities. Indeed it is. But they have changed. They are getting worse. See Killing Babies

Comments

[DM Andy]

Shame to let the facts get in the way of a good slogan John.

Your claim is that more babies are dying under Labour. WRONG.

The infant mortality rate in 1995-1997 was 5.8 babies per thousand live births, the most recent infant mortality rate is 5.0 babies per thousand live births (Source Tackling Health Inequalities section 4.9)

The health equalities gap has widened because the rate for "routine and manual" has reduced at a smaller rate than that for the general population (from 6.6 in 1995/97 to 6.0).

[Dr John Crippen]

For babies whose fathers have a "routine or manual occupation", the mortality rate in 2004-06 was 17% higher than that for the general population, compared to 13% in 1997-99.

Public health minister Dawn Primarolo said: "This report proves what we already know - health inequalities are difficult to change.

[Ian McKellar]

The trouble is that I do not believe any statistic issued by this present Government.

The story does trigger a memory from the distant past in that in the mid-to late 1970s, infant mortality in Harold Wilson's Britain was higher that that in Pinochet's Chile.

[Ian McKellar]

The trouble is that I do not believe any statistic issued by this present Government.

The story does trigger a memory from the distant past in that in the mid-to late 1970s, infant mortality in Harold Wilson's Britain was higher that that in Pinochet's Chile.

[DM Andy]

John, your quote does not indicate that more babies are dying under Labour. Dawn's comment is that children fathered by men in the routine and manual group are more likely to die than the average child and that gap has widened rather than closed during this Labour Government.

I'm not claiming that less babies dying are down to this government, medical care has improved to the point where very premature babies that wouldn't have had a chance 10 years ago now survive. Also greater awareness of cot deaths probably contributes to the reduction.

I have to say that I hope you're not my GP because you have a worrying lack of grasp of basic maths. Maybe it was a Labour government in charge when you were doing your numbers in infant school. 5.0 is less than 5.8, so it's "Less babies are dying under Labour".

To Ian: If you believe that this government fiddled these figures, please explain why the same figures would show that the government have failed to achieve their target?