It's too early for the Lib Dems to declare "victory"

The battle over Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms isn't over yet.

He may once have boasted that Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms were in the Liberal Democrat manifesto but Nick Clegg is still hailing their dilution as his biggest "victory" since the coalition began. The cause of such excitement is the publication by Steve Field, the GP who led the government's "listening exercise", of a report into the reforms, although most of the key changes were announced in David Cameron's speech last week. To summarise, the 2013 deadline for the creation of GP-led consortiums will be "relaxed"; membership of the consortiums will be opened up to hospital doctors and nurses, and the main duty of Monitor, the health regulator, will be to promote "integration", not "competition".

To the consternation of the Tories, Clegg has published a "scorecard" showing that the Lib Dems have secured 11 of the 13 changes demanded by its conference. In the Independent, a jubilant Shirley Williams declares that, thanks to her party's efforts, "the Prime Minister will be able to say with confidence that the NHS is safe in the Coalition's hands".

More cautious types are reminding the Lib Dems that the political wrangling isn't over yet. Clegg, Cameron and Andrew Lansley will issue their own response to the report at a joint event tomorrow, and the Tory right are using the intervening period to demand a limit to the concessions.

Then there's the question of NHS funding, a landmine primed to explode at some point in the near future. As I noted last week, Cameron is on course to break his pledge to increase spending on the health service - higher inflation means that it faces a real-terms cut. The coalition's NHS woes are far from over.

But it would still be churlish to deny that this is some of the best press the Lib Dems have had since the coalition was formed. The government's decision to "modify" its £26,000 benefits cap has already been successfully spun as another victory for Clegg's party. Whether the voters will give them any credit, however, remains to be seen.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.