Labour: NHS to be a "defining issue" at the next election

Ed Miliband turns his attention to the coalition's disastrous health bill.

Ramping up his recent attacks on the coalition's controversial health bill, Labour leader Ed Miliband today told nurses at the Royal Bolton Hospital that the NHS will be a:

defining issue

at the next general election.

He was instantly mocked for saying so by the usual suspects. I'm not sure why. As I said on Twitter this morning, it's not rocket science. The polls have Labour ahead of the Conservatives on the NHS (and the Opposition has doubled its lead over the Tories on health since the election); the health bill has so far been a PR disaster for the coalition (Cameron's "poll tax", in the helpful words of one of his Conservative cabinet colleagues); Miliband bests Cameron in PMQs every time the NHS comes up; and Cameron, of course, used the NHS to try and "detoxify" his party ahead of the last general election so there's no reason why Labour can't now use the health bill to try and retoxify the Tories.

Some on the right recognise this point. As the Spectator's Peter Hoskin observed:

If the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion, then the Labour leader is hoping to stir up some sectarian fervour.

And as ConservativeHome's Tim Montgomerie put it:

The NHS Bill is not just a distraction from all of this but potentially fatal to the Conservative Party's electoral prospects.

Or is it? Some have argued that the NHS doesn't win Labour general elections. That's arguable. Others say that the economy should be the "decisive issue". But, hold on, Miliband didn't say health would be "the" defining issue at the next election; he said it would be "a" defining issue. Get the difference? There's absolutely no reason why the economy (growth, jobs, living standards, vested interests, etc) and health can't both bedefining issues come 2015.

YouGov's Peter Kellner says:

It's possible the saga of the NHS could resemble that of Thatcher's privatisation: people, if asked, say they are against change, but not to the extent of switching their vote. The verdict that will matter will come after reform, when people can judge by results. If the Health Bill is enacted, patients and their relatives will be able to cast their votes at the next election on the basis of experience. If the much-maligned Andrew Lansley is proved right, and the NHS provides a better service, then there is no reason why the Tories will suffer.

However, if the Bill's critics are right, and the NHS deteriorates, then the electorate may exact fierce revenge. David Cameron has fought so hard to dispel old fears that the Tories don't really care about the NHS: those fears may come rushing back. If Ed Miliband has managed to restore at least partially Labour's reputation for competence, then we could see something that has happened only once before in the past 80 years: a Government being booted out after just one term in office.

Here's hoping, eh? And, indeed, as the False Economy website argues in a new factsheet, the health bill will lead to more bureaucracy, longer waiting times and "a postcode lottery on a scale not seen before". Good luck Dave!

On a side note, here's a link to my column in today's Independent, headlined: "Follow Obama, Ed, and get in touch with your inner populist". Enjoy!

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The three big mistakes the government has made in its Brexit talks

Nicola Sturgeon fears that the UK has no negotiating position at all. It's worse than she thinks. 

It’s fair to say that the first meeting of the government’s Brexit ministers and the leaders of the devolved legislatures did not go well.

Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon told reporters outside that it had all been “deeply frustrating”, and that it was impossible for her to undermine the United Kingdom’s negotiating position as “I can’t undermine something that doesn’t exist, and at the moment it doesn’t seem to me like there is a UK negotiating strategy”.

To which cynical observers might say: she would, wouldn’t she? It’s in Sturgeon’s interest to paint the Westminster government as clueless and operating in a way that puts Scotland’s interests at risk. Maybe so, but Carwyn Jones, her Welsh opposite number, tends to strike a more conciliatory figure at these events – he’s praised both George Osborne and David Cameron in the past.

So it’s hard not to be alarmed at his statement to the press that there is still “huge uncertainty” about what the British government’s negotiating position. Even Arlene Foster, the first minister in Northern Ireland, whose party, the DUP, is seen as an increasingly reliable ally for the Conservative government, could only really volunteer that “we’re in a negotiation and we will be in a negotiation and it will be complex”.

All of which makes Jeremy Corbyn’s one-liner in the Commons today that the government is pursuing neither hard Brexit nor soft Brexit but “chaotic Brexit” ring true.

It all adds to a growing suspicion that the government’s negotiating strategy might be, as Jacqui Smith once quipped of Ed Miliband’s policy review, something of “a pregnant panda – it's been a very long time in the making and no one's quite sure if there's anything in there anyway”.

That’s not the case – but the reality is not much more comforting. The government has long believed, as Philip Hammond put when being grilled by the House of Lords on the issue:

"There's an intrinsic tension here between democratic accountability of the government and effective negotiation with a third party. Our paramount objective must be to get a good deal for Britain. I am afraid will not be achieved by spelling out our negotiating strategy."

That was echoed by Theresa May in response to Corbyn’s claim that the government has no plan for Brexit:

 “We have a plan, which is not to give out details of the negotiation as they are being negotiated”

Are Hammond and May right? Well, sort of. There is an innate tension between democratic accountability and a good deal, of course. The more is known about what the government’s red lines in negotiations, the higher the price they will have to pay to protect. That’s why, sensibly, Hammond, both as Foreign Secretary during the dying days of David Cameron’s government, and now as Chancellor, has attempted to head off public commitments about the shape of the Brexit deal.

But – and it’s a big but – the government has already shown a great deal of its hand. May made three big reveals about the government’s Brexit strategy it in her conference speech: firstly, she started the clock ticking on when Britain will definitely leave the European Union, by saying she will activate Article 50 no later than 31 March 2017. Secondly, she said that Brexit meant that Britain would control its own borders. And thirdly, she said that Brexit meant that Britain would no longer be subject to the judgements of the European Court of Justice.

The first reveal means that there is no chance that any of 27 remaining nations of the European Union will break ranks and begin informal talks before Article 50 is triggered.

The second reveal makes it clear that Britain will leave the single market, because none of the four freedoms – of goods, services, capital or people – can be negotiated away, not least because of the fear of political contagion within the EU27, as an exit deal which allowed the United Kingdom to maintain the three other freedoms while giving up the fourth would cause increased pressure from Eurosceptics in western Europe.

And the third reveal makes it equally clear that Britain will leave the customs union as there is no way you can be part of a union if you do not wish to accept its legal arbiter.

So the government has already revealed its big priorities and has therefore jacked up the price, meaning that the arguments about not revealing the government’s hand is not as strong as it ideally would be.

The other problem, though, is this: Theresa May’s Brexit objectives cannot be met without a hard Brexit, with the only question the scale of the initial shock. As I’ve written before, there is a sense that the government might be able to “pay to play”, ie, in exchange for continuing to send money to Brussels and to member states, the United Kingdom could maintain a decent standard of access to the single market.

My impression is that the mood in Brussels now makes this very tricky. The tone coming out of Conservative party conference has left goodwill in short supply, meaning that a “pay to play” deal is unlikely. But the other problem is that, by leaving so much of its objectives in the dark, Theresa May is not really laying the groundwork for a situation where she can return to Britain with an exit deal where Britain pays large sums to the European Union for a worse deal than the one it has now. (By the way, that is very much the best case scenario for what she might come back with.) Silence may make for good negotiations in Brussels – but in terms of the negotiation that may follow swiftly after in Westminster, it has entirely the opposite effect. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.