How much “listening” will Cameron do on the NHS?

The PM plans to delay NHS reform for three months but what concessions will he offer?

The "breakneck coalition" has hit another bump in the road. David Cameron has bowed to the inevitable and put the government's NHS bill on hold for the next three months while ministers agree on the way forward.

The announcement of a delay will be made at a joint event later this week involving Cameron, Andrew Lansley and, notably, Nick Clegg, whom the PM is determined to bind in to the changes.

It remains unclear whether the delay is merely part of a "listening exercise" or a prelude to significant concessions on competition, the role of the private sector and GP accountability. What we won't see is a U-turn akin to that on forest privatisation. Cameron is too personally committed to the reforms to change course now. The shadow health secretary, John Healey, has rightly warned that "simply doing the wrong things more slowly is not the answer".

The Lib Dem opponents of the reforms, led by Evan Harris, issued a list of "essential amendments" last night, described as "the minimum" needed to satisfy the party's members. Of the 23 proposed amendments, here are the most significant:

Elected councillors to sit on GP consortiums

"Membership of local commissioning bodies to include a substantial proportion of elected councillors as per Coalition Agreement to improve transparency and accountability."

Piloting of the reforms

"The changes to commissioning to be piloted and evaluated before full roll-out."

A ban on "cherry-picking" by the private sector

"Commissioning to be governed by a requirement/duty on commissioners, when considering contracting with any new provider – or offering the choice of a new provider – to be satisfied that broader service stability is safeguarded and that cherry-picking and cream-skimming are avoided."

Constraints on EU competition law

"Statutory provision to ensure that provision of clinical services to the NHS is not governed by current EU and UK competition law to a greater extent than is the case now. In particular to provide that vertical integration of services is not impeded by competition law."

Lansley, who has already given ground on price competition, is thought to be willing to agree to restrictions on "cherry-picking" and on the role of the regulator Monitor. The government had originally hoped to make changes to the bill in the Lords but, under pressure from Clegg, it is now likely to do so in the Commons. The principles of the bill, ministers insist, will remain in place.

In an attempt to seize the initiative, Ed Miliband will offer cross-party talks to develop "replacement plans" in a speech this morning. Cameron may dismiss the Labour leader as a "roadblock", but he has handed him the sort of opportunity that opposition leaders dream of.

Lansley's technocratic style means that the coalition has allowed the reforms to be defined by the media. As a consequence, it will struggle to convince a sceptical public that the changes are "practical" as opposed to ideological. With the coalition's higher education plans also in chaos, ministers have been taught a salutary lesson in the perils of hasty reform.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”