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 Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.