For this weekâs magazine I have interviewed Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham. We know, of course, that he opposes the governmentâs health reforms. But I was intrigued to hear how far he would commit Labour to reversing the plans if they are enacted. The answer, it turns out, is quite far. PCTâs he said, would âdefinitelyâ be reinstated.
I have been mystified by Labourâs stance on public service reform since the election. Indeed, ever since Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair in Number 10 it hasnât been clear whether the party is for or against the use of market mechanisms and competition to drive change. (Ed Miliband, I gather, has not yet finalised his own thinking on this question.) But as far as the NHS is concerned Burnham made it pretty clear that the march of Blairism is halted.
The most efficient healthcare systems in the world are the ones that are planned and managed ⊠the argument that the market is cheaper just doesnât wash.
It was a long conversation and not all of it made it into the magazine â constraints of space rather than interest. So, for example, Burnham was revealing on the difference between his current job and his last one. He was reshuffled away from the education portfolio last month. Comparing Michael Goveâs education reforms and Andrew Lansleyâs health plans he said:
Theyâre both highly ideological, free market, damaging reforms and they will dismantle in both cases the infrasttructuire and state healthcare and state education. Theyâre designed to do that, theyâre born of an innate distrust of planned and managed systems. Both reforms are almost identical in that.
But he noted that having shadowed both jobs:
Gove has been cleverer in both the momentum he set and the way in which he created a vision and went for it. Lansley has just created a mess. Heâs 18 months into the job and people are less about what he is trying to do.
I noted my impression that Labour seemed ready to accept Goveâs plans as a fait accompli (they build on Blair reforms, after all). Having signalled that the health plans would be reversed, would he accept that the school reforms would not?
There is a differnece between health and education. A degree of school autonomy is a good thing the identity of the school, its independence â PISA [the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developmentâs Programme for International School Assessment] backs autonomous schools within a strong system ⊠You wouldnât want to go completely back to the old days when the local authority replaced every window and all of that stuff ⊠But you need a strong system. In Education you would have to balance strong independent schools wth reassertion of the local authority role on fairer admissions.
We had a long conversation about public health. Burnham accepted that his party had sometimes crossed the line in terms of meddling in peopleâs lives.
The tendency for Labour is sometimes to go straight to regulation, straight for the sledgehammer. I donât thnk we should do that.
But he sought to draw a distinction between interventions to protect children and the need for a lighter touch where adults are concerned:
And if people say ânanny stateâ weâll just say âYeah, so what! We are working to give every child the healthiest possible start in lifeâ
Naturally we talked about social care â the main theme in Burnhamâs campaign for the Labour leadership. He has been invited to cross-party talks on advancing the ideas contained in the Dilnot report on long-term funding. Not surprisingly, Burnham is wary. When he was Health Secretary and Lansley was his shadow equivalent talks collapsed in rancour. The Tories attacked Labourâs proposals in a public campaign as a âDeath Taxâ.
The irony of it was unbelievable. I got a letter from Lansley inviting me to take part in cross-pary talks on social care about a week into this job. Bear in mind, he initiated the talks last time, so it was about as alluring as an invitation from Liam Fox to talk about defence procurement with his friened Mr Werrity.
Burnham says he is prepared to participate but as long as certain conditions are met. They include confidentiality, guarantees on funding and access to the Department of Health Secretariat for figures and demographic modelling.
Given that Burnham has this week launched what he calls âthe last pushâ to kill off Lansleyâs NHS reforms, Iâd be surprised if collegiate negotiations on social care got under way any time soon.
As a parting shot I asked him he could imagine ever working with Liberal Democrats â given that they too have opposed aspects of Lansleyâs reform. He belittled their contribution. (âThe Liberal Democrats havenât done anything to the Health Bill.â) And could he ever imagine serving in a coalition with Lib Dems?
âPeople like Norman Lamb, Iâve got lots of common ground with. Iâd work with people like that.â
And Nick Clegg?
âCleggâs basically a Tory. Itâs like asking me if I could serve in a cabinet with Tories. I find it hard to imagine.â
Read the rest in the magazine.