How Cameron has backed Labour in parliament

New research shows the Tories have supported most bills

Election campaigns tend to magnify the differences between parties but, however much tribalists on both sides might protest, the long view suggests that the political differences between Labour and the Tories have continued to narrow.

New research by the indispensable Revolts shows that the Conservative front bench voted against just four out of 27 bills in the last session -- a mere 15 per cent of government legislation. In total, the Tories opposed just one in five of the bills introduced since 2005. David Cameron has clearly lived up to his promise to support Labour when it does the right thing.

By contrast, under William Hague, the Tories voted against two out of every five; and under Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard they opposed one in three.

Much of this support is based on political calculation and Cameron has been careful to avoid Gordon Brown's elephant traps. As one senior Tory MP told the Times:

There is a lot in the Equality Bill that we did not like at all, but they would have loved it had we been put in a position where we were opposing equality. Brown has also been trying to get us to oppose the 50p tax rate. But we won't play his game.

But there is also a more principled approach at work that rejects opposition for opposition's sake and recognises that it's better to improve a bill than to reject it.

It is important to note that the research doesn't include free votes on issues such as abortion, human fertilisation and fox-hunting, where significant ethical differences between the parties remain. But it does suggest we are moving towards a more consensual, European-style system.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.