David Cameron and the uninvited doctors: that No. 10 guestlist in full

Groups that have called for NHS reforms to be scrapped are excluded from special summit on the healt

What do you do when people disagree with you? Well, excluding them is one option. David Cameron is holding a special summit on the NHS bill today -- very special, as it will only include medical colleges and health practitioners that back the bill.

Strikingly, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have not been invited, despite the fact that the centrepiece of the bill is giving more power to GPs.

This graphic by Ben Goldacre sums up the invite list:

invite

Downing Street has acknowledged that the guest list is built around supporters of the health bill, stressing that the discussion today is about how to implement the health bill, not about amending or abandoning it. On that basis, they said, there is little point inviting those who have opposed the reform from the start.

However, Cameron has been accused of playing divide and rule with health practitioners. Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing was incredulous: "We don't know why we haven't been invited but we, like others, find it extraordinary because at the end of the day, it is nurses, doctors, physios, GPs that actually keep the health service going."

The Prime Minister, who has taken personal responsibility for pushing the changes through, will make it clear today that he believes that it is too late to change course. While excluding dissenting groups may be expedient, such tactics are unlikely to go down well with the public: a Unite/YouGov poll found that six times as many people trust health professionals over Cameron and Andrew Lansley on NHS reorganisation (60 per cent and 10 per cent respectively). Labour has opened up a 15 point lead over the Tories on the NHS. Fifty-nine per cent of people already feel that Cameron has not honoured his pre-election promises on the NHS. Visibly going against the will of medical professionals could seriously compound that loss of trust.

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

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.