Is the NHS reform overhaul merely cosmetic?

The government has accepted "core" changes to its NHS reform -- but the coalition's NHS headache is

The Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has confirmed significant changes to the government's NHS reforms, following a 10 week "listening exercise".
This looks like a significant victory for the Liberal Democrats, who resoundingly voted against moves to introduce greater competition. Reportedly, Nick Clegg was cheered by his MPs last night when he told them their demands had been "very, very handsomely met". In another victory for Clegg, the bill will return to committee stage in the House of Commons, meaning that it will not become law until next year.

At a joint press conference with David Cameron and Lansley, Clegg said that the government now has a plan "we can all get behind". The two key changes are watering down Monitor's role in promoting competition, and relaxing the 2013 deadline for reform.

While this is a significant step forwards, however, the coalition's NHS headache is not over yet. Cameron now faces the challenge of winning over Tory backbenchers who are angry at the way Lansley has been treated. It is believed that he was subjected to unfair briefings, given that his white paper on health was agreed by Clegg and Cameron last year.

However, Lansley and Cameron have both stressed that while the detail has been modified, the fundamentals of the plan -- giving greater commissioning powers to GPs and allowing greater competition in the health service -- are unchanged.

Gary Gibbon suggests that even these changes to the detail could be merely cosmetic:

Changing the terms for Monitor, the NHS regulator, is an interesting one too. I just asked a very senior member of the NHS Future Forum what was the difference is between an economic regulator and a sector regulator. "There's no difference," he said. If Monitor is no longer about "promoting" competition, what is its role on competition I asked. "Enabling" competition, came the answer. These are "totemic" changes, he said. You don't need a regulator to "promote competition" if you've created the space for competition. It'll just come, like breathing.

My source said the Forum frequently felt it was trying to put the original plans into politically acceptable language, not make radical change to the original Lansley reforms.

All this could be wishful thinking by supporters of the original reforms but I pass it on.

Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, a former doctor and critic of the original bill, described these new proposals as "a change in emphasis". The Lib Dems are certainly entitled to their jubilation at these concessions -- but at this stage, it is impossible to tell what this will mean in practice.

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

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.