Milburn's challenge to Labour on NHS reform

Former health secretary argues that Labour should take up the mantle of radical reform.

The Tories lack the public trust needed to radically reform the NHS, so Labour must. That's the striking message of Alan Milburn's essay in tomorrow's New Statesman. Tony Blair's former health secretary argues that Andrew Lansley's bill, "riddled with complexity and compromise", means the Tories have "forfeited any claim to be the party of NHS reform."

He writes:

Obsessed with policy tinkering, Lansley ignored the politically inconvenient truth that the Conservatives simply did not have enough public trust on the NHS to inflict change within it. The baggage they carried of being ideologically obsessed with privatisation weighed them down once they hit a wave of opposition to their health reforms. They are drowning as a result.

From here, he urges Labour to take up the mantle of reform. The left has the opposite problem to the right, Milburn argues. While it has the permission to make change, it lacks the volition. He writes:

Too often the left in Europe has shied away from such an apporach. It has adopted a protectionist rather than a reformist approach to the public services. The left's default position has been to stand up for producers, not consumers. Defending the status quo in a world of such rapid change has proved to be a recipe for electoral disaster. In France, Germany, Italy, Spain, even Sweden, the left has suffered consecutive election defeats where until recently it could lay claim to be the natural party of government. As New Labour proved, it is not by being protectionist but by being reformist that the left is able to win.

He urges Labour to embrace reforms that "empower patients, financially incentivise outcomes, increase competition, improve transparency and devolve accountability to local care organisations."

If that sounds remarkably similar to Lansley's vision for the NHS, it's because it is. Milburn's objection to the coalition's approach isn't a principled one but a pragmatic one. In his view, only Labour, the party that founded the NHS and restored it to health, has the political trust required to introduce Lansley-style reforms.

It's a message that sits uneasily with Labour's current approach. As David Cameron rightly noted at today's PMQs, it was Ed Miliband's party that first introduced private competition into the NHS in 2008. For now, with Cameron on the ropes, Labour is in no mood to reflect on this fact. But Milburn's essay will reignite the debate about what the party is for, rather than merely against.

George Eaton is political editor of 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.