The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Clegg hits out at Cameron over NHS reforms

Deputy PM attacks Cameron for undermining the NHS while declaring that he loves it.

By George Eaton Published 18 May 2011 10:21

He may once have boasted that the government's NHS reforms were in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, but Nick Clegg is now chipping away at Andrew Lansley's masterplan. The BBC has obtained a copy of a Lib Dem policy document signed by Clegg which demands that Monitor, the health regulator, should have a duty to promote NHS colloboration rather than competition.

The document states: "We cannot treat the NHS as if it were a utility, and the decision to establish Monitor as an "economic regulator" was clearly a misjudgement, failing to recognise all the unique characteristics of a public health service, and opening us up to accusations that we are trying to subject the NHS to the full rigours of UK and EU competition law."

It's a demand that has been echoed by the British Medical Association and by the independent-minded Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, and one distinctly at odds with Lansley's original vision of a market-based NHS. In his address to Lib Dem MPs and peers last night, Clegg said:

There must be no change in the way competition law operates in our NHS. No to establishing Monitor as an economic regulator as if health care was just like electricity or the telephone, and no to giving anyone in the NHS a duty to promote competition above all else.

But it's Clegg's coded criticism of David Cameron that is most striking. He is reported to have said:

People get confused when one day they hear politicians declare how much they love the NHS and the next they hear people describing themselves as government advisers saying that reform is a huge opportunity for big profits for health-care corporations.

The Deputy PM doesn't mention Cameron by name but it's clear who he has in mind. After all, it was the Prime Minister who declared in a speech on Monday: "[I]t's because I love the NHS so much that I want to change it." And it was his adviser Mark Britnell (recently appointed to a panel of senior health policy experts by Cameron), who told a conference for health-care corporations:

The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years.

One legacy of the AV referendum campaign is that Clegg now feels liberated to speak out. Cameron's failure to block the vociferous attacks on his deputy by the No to AV campaign means that Clegg is a lot less willing only to air his grievances in private.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Nick Clegg David Cameron NHS

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

12 comments

Wed, 2011-05-18 16:55 — Herbert (not verified)

Interesting how 'quality' doesn't come into it when it doesn't suit the argument. The quality in these cases (utilities, banks) is supposed to be quality of service - or that's what they tell us. That is a quality too, if you hadn't noticed. It's poorly considered responses like yours - complete with the market drivers jargon - that distort these debates.

Wed, 2011-05-18 10:38 — Marcus (not verified)

Political opportunism aside, i do not understand why the 'progessives' are against the changes outlined, especially when they are simply a natural continuation of the changes initiated by Blair.

This nit picking over minute detail in an overwise pretty much agreed policy to serve a political agenda is stupid.

The NHS should be above politics.

Wed, 2011-05-18 10:39 — Mike S (not verified)

As Shirley Williams demanded the other day, Mark Britnell should have been fired immediately his remarks became public. The fact that Cameron hasn't fired him tells us all we need to know about this 'consultation' period.

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:01 — jacobfite (not verified)

Let us take an example of Texas. The "Penny Health Insurance" is quite popular in Arizona. It provides so many offers for the low income people.

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:15 — mike cobley (not verified)

Quoth Marcus - "...i do not understand why the 'progessives' are against the changes outlined, especially when they are simply a natural continuation of the changes initiated by Blair."

And we all know how progressive Blair was, especially with the 'progressive' Private Finance Initiative, or the 'progressive' invasion of Iraq, etc etc et-bloody-c.

As for "...nit picking over minute detail in an overwise pretty much agreed policy..." - cough, agreed upon by who, exactly? Cameron campaigned on not mucking around with NHS reforms, yet here we are. The nit to be picked is the package of reforms which the majority of the public oppose, and the minute details are the tasty profits now being anticipated by a slavering array of rapacious corporations.

And contrary to your final rejoinder, the last year has proved that the NHS, its meaning and ethos, is highly political. It has always represented a democratic bulwark against the small-minded mean-spirited principles of the Tory party and its corrosive partners. If the NHS goes, we will lose one of the fundamental elements of decent living. We cannot let this happen.

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:29 — zsremrxc

All government does is empower the good for nothing greedy damned to hell...every one of them will be cursed and abandoned...no exceptions no excuses...its called instant dismissal...goodbye Cameron don't call us and we will never be calling on you...rotten bastard

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:30 — Akin (not verified)

Marcus

'Political opportunism aside, i do not understand why the 'progressives' are against the changes outlined, especially when they are simply a natural continuation of the changes initiated by Blair.'

With respect, you should get it into your head, Blair was not a progressive, and Labour are not the opposite of the Tories on the political spectrum. The Tories aren't continuing on from Labour; Labour continued on from the Tories.
Read George Monbiot's article in the Guardian this week about the NHS.

'The NHS should be above politics'

Nothing's above politics

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:57 — Stu (not verified)

It's good that Clegg does this as it gives the Tories something to think about. If he didn't then everything will be steam rolled ahead and then we'll have problems.

The NHS needs to be reformed - fact.

btw I don't think any politician is stupid enough to scrap the whole thing, so anyone that says so is being a tad hysterical.

Wed, 2011-05-18 12:02 — Ivan White

The Tory plan to carve up the NHS for private profit is not a continuation of what Blair started, this is an entirely different beast. Blair used the private sector to supplement the NHS and reduce waiting times (up to two years, remember?) which had built up under years of Tory neglect.

The Tories want the private sector to replace NHS provision, partly for ideological reasons (they voted against the NHS at its inception, and some of them still see it as "a 60-year mistake"), and partly to repay those private healthcare firms which have been bankrolling them.

If the Tory plans aren't scuppered now, the NHS is finished.

http://cuttingedgeuk.proboards.com/index.cgi

Wed, 2011-05-18 12:17 — Benn (not verified)

"Blair used the private sector to supplement the NHS"

"The Tories want the private sector to replace NHS provision"

Now now Ivan, Blair started the concept of private company provision within the NHS. To politically play with words "supplement" and "replace" is to mislead.

The plans are not privatisation, merely an extension of what already goes on. Even if some services were exclusively provided by private companies would it be such a bad thing if some elements of the NHS were delivered at lower cost than the current model is capable of?

I do not understand the fear people have of private companies providing healthcare?

In an industry such as the NHS where there is no concept competition the need to provide high quality care (tantamount to customer service) is lost and needs to be regulated - heavily (CQUINS - Targets - Waiting Times etc etc). In a competitive market place the competition happens on QUALITY, people miss this point.

If you were choosing a hospital you wouldn’t look at that hospitals profit and loss and say “ahhh yes, they make and excellent bottom line margin and great ROCE – I’m going here” you would look at the CLINICAL performance and choose accordingly. Poorly performing hospitals would fail and better practice would be encouraged throughout.

Wed, 2011-05-18 13:38 — Herbert (not verified)

Benn writes, 'In a competitive market place the competition happens on QUALITY, people miss this point.'

Competitive market places like the utilities, banks... where all is smoke and mirrors and everything turns out to be the same exploitative crap.

Wed, 2011-05-18 13:49 — Benn (not verified)

Herbert - so you buy electricity and gas based on quality then do you?

Its poorly considered points of view like that which distort these debates.

Of course you don't apply a consideration of "quality" to the gas or electricity you buy, you look and are influenced by price. The same is true of banks to large degree - i.e. lowest mortage rates, lowest FOREX charges etc.

Health is OBVIOUSLY not the same and the market drivers considered by the consumers would be different.