PMQs review: an end-of-term triumph for Miliband

The Labour leader is growing in confidence as Cameron's woes multiply.

Perhaps the only consolation that David Cameron can draw from today's PMQs is that he won't have to do it again for seven weeks. It is hard to recall a more confident performance from Ed Miliband or a more faltering one from Cameron. 

If Cameron thinks that the solution to his woes is to revive the "Red Ed" jibe, he's in even more trouble than we thought. That was the put-down that he fell back on after Miliband quipped: "the redder he gets, the less he convinces people". When the Labour leader referred to the PM's altercation with Conservative MP Jesse Norman, Cameron denounced him for recycling "tittle tattle" and "half-baked gossip" (note that he did not deny the encounter). But it was Cameron who came unstuck when Miliband turned to two issues of substance: the double-dip recession "made in Downing Street" and the "millionaires' tax cut". Cameron has still not found a convincing way to rebut the charge that he "makes the wrong choices and stands up for the wrong people". His tactic of blaming "the mess" left by the last Labour government ("we will never forget what we were left by the party opposite," he said) may have worked in the early days of the coalition but it is subject to ever-diminishing returns. Most voters view it as an evasive attempt to shift the blame for Britain's economic woes.

Cameron's strongest line was his declaration that "we back the workers, they back the shirkers". As the polls indicate, the benefits caps is (lamentably) the most popular coalition policy. But the problem for Cameron is that he has failed to live up to the first part of this injunction. He has raised VAT and cut tax credits for the working poor, while handing a £40,000 tax cut to 14,000 millionaires. Back in January, when Miliband's leadership was at its lowest ebb, almost no one would have forecast that he, not Cameron, would end the session in a position of strength. That he has done is reflective not only of his improved performance but of the series of disastrous blunders Cameron has made.

Ed Miliband said of Cameron: "the redder he gets, the less he convinces people". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexit could destroy our NHS – and it would be the government's own fault

Without EU citizens, the health service will be short of 20,000 nurses in a decade.

Aneurin Bevan once said: "Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune, the cost of which should be shared by the community."

And so, in 1948, the National Health Service was established. But today, the service itself seems to be on life support and stumbling towards a final and fatal collapse.

It is no secret that for years the NHS has been neglected and underfunded by the government. But Brexit is doing the NHS no favours either.

In addition to the promise of £350m to our NHS every week, Brexit campaigners shamefully portrayed immigrants, in many ways, as as a burden. This is quite simply not the case, as statistics have shown how Britain has benefited quite significantly from mass EU migration. The NHS, again, profited from large swathes of European recruitment.

We are already suffering an overwhelming downturn in staffing applications from EU/EAA countries due to the uncertainty that Brexit is already causing. If the migration of nurses from EEA countries stopped completely, the Department of Health predicts the UK would have a shortage of 20,000 nurses by 2025/26. Some hospitals have significantly larger numbers of EU workers than others, such as Royal Brompton in London, where one in five workers is from the EU/EAA. How will this be accounted for? 

Britain’s solid pharmaceutical industry – which plays an integral part in the NHS and our everyday lives – is also at risk from Brexit.

London is the current home of the highly prized EU regulatory body, the European Medicine Agency, which was won by John Major in 1994 after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty.

The EMA is tasked with ensuring that all medicines available on the EU market are safe, effective and of high quality. The UK’s relationship with the EMA is unquestionably vital to the functioning of the NHS.

As well as delivering 900 highly skilled jobs of its own, the EMA is associated with 1,299 QPPV’s (qualified person for pharmacovigilance). Various subcontractors, research organisations and drug companies have settled in London to be close to the regulatory process.

The government may not be able to prevent the removal of the EMA, but it is entirely in its power to retain EU medical staff. 

Yet Theresa May has failed to reassure EU citizens, with her offer to them falling short of continuation of rights. Is it any wonder that 47 per cent of highly skilled workers from the EU are considering leaving the UK in the next five years?

During the election, May failed to declare how she plans to increase the number of future homegrown nurses or how she will protect our current brilliant crop of European nurses – amounting to around 30,000 roles.

A compromise in the form of an EFTA arrangement would lessen the damage Brexit is going to cause to every single facet of our NHS. Yet the government's rhetoric going into the election was "no deal is better than a bad deal". 

Whatever is negotiated with the EU over the coming years, the NHS faces an uncertain and perilous future. The government needs to act now, before the larger inevitable disruptions of Brexit kick in, if it is to restore stability and efficiency to the health service.

0800 7318496