Clegg hits out at Cameron over NHS reforms

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

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.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496