The coalition is now split over national health policy

NHS reform becomes first public division as Lib Dem conference votes in favour of radical rewrite of

Controversial proposals to reform the National Health Service in England has become the first public split on policy between the two coalition parties, after the Liberal Democrat spring conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of an extensive rewrite of the bill.

While there have been numerous backbench revolts on certain issues, such as tuition fees, and areas in which the parties have codified their disagreement, such as voting reform, this is the first public division on policy.

Nick Clegg, who said yesterday he was "very relaxed and very positive" about the NHS debate, narrowly averted defeat by accepting two "rebel" amendments when it became obvious that they were going to pass.

The two amendments centre on limiting the role of the private sector in the NHS. The party votes for banning GP consortiums from taking decisions in private about spending NHS money, totally ruling out any competition based on price, banning private companies from taking over commissioning, allowing private health providers in only when it will not damage existing NHS services, and ensuring the role of local government in the consortiums.

This vote is a major development: it means that Clegg's party is formally committed to changing the Health Bill. Evan Harris, the former Oxford MP campaigning on the motion, said that the party expected Clegg and the health minister Paul Burstow to be bound by the vote. In a clear challenge to the leadership, Evans said: "We expect Liberal Democrats in government to follow what we overwhelmingly vote for."

This will pose problems for Clegg with his Conservative cabinet colleagues, as the proposed changes will not beaccepted happily by the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley (who has also attracted the anger of doctors). Indeed, the whole bill – which proposes giving control of 80 per cent of the NHS budget to GP consortiums – is underpinned by a market-based philosophy.

This opens up an easy fault line for Labour, which can exploit the motion passed today by proposing amendments to the bill and challenging Lib Dem MPs to stay consistent with the decisions passed today and vote against the government.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Supreme Court gives MPs a vote on Brexit – but who are the real winners?

The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament must have a say in starting the process of Brexit. But this may be a hollow victory for Labour. 

The Supreme Court has ruled by a majority of 8 to 3 that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament, as leaving the European Union represents a change of a source of UK law, and a loss of rights by UK citizens, which can only be authorised by the legislature, not the executive. (You can read the full judgement here).

But crucially, they have unanimously ruled that the devolved parliaments do not need to vote before the government triggers Article 50.

Which as far as Brexit is concerned, doesn't change very much. There is a comfortable majority to trigger Article 50 in both Houses of Parliament. It will highlight Labour's agonies over just how to navigate the Brexit vote and to keep its coalition together, but as long as Brexit is top of the agenda, that will be the case.

And don't think that Brexit will vanish any time soon. As one senior Liberal Democrat pointed out, "it took Greenland three years to leave - and all they had to talk about was fish". We will be disentangling ourselves from the European Union for years, and very possibly for decades. Labour's Brexit problem has a long  way yet to run.

While the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will not be able to stop or delay Brexit, that their rights have been unanimously ruled against will be a boon to Sinn Féin in the elections in March, and a longterm asset to the SNP as well. The most important part of all this: that the ruling will be seen in some parts of Northern Ireland as an unpicking of the Good Friday Agreement. That issue hasn't gone away, you know. 

But it's Theresa May who today's judgement really tells you something about. She could very easily have shrugged off the High Court's judgement as one of those things and passed Article 50 through the Houses of Parliament by now. (Not least because the High Court judgement didn't weaken the powers of the executive or require the devolved legislatures, both of which she risked by carrying on the fight.)

If you take one thing from that, take this: the narrative that the PM is indecisive or cautious has more than a few holes in it. Just ask George Osborne, Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan and Ed Vaizey: most party leaders would have refrained from purging an entire faction overnight, but not May.

Far from being risk-averse, the PM is prone to a fight. And in this case, she's merely suffered delay, rather than disaster. But it may be that far from being undone by caution, it will be her hotblooded streak that brings about the end of Theresa May.

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