The real reason Clegg saved the NHS bill
If the junior coalition party had killed the bill, Cameron would have appointed a Lib Dem health sec
By Rafael Behr Published 22 March 2012 14:09
The Budget has blown most other political news off the agenda, so it is worth recalling that earlier in the week the cabinet was celebrating what it thought was the passing of a different headache: Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms. There was apparently a hearty banging of the cabinet table on Tuesday in celebration of the Health and Social Care Bill's gruesome completion of its parliamentary odyssey. I suspect that jubilation expressed relief rather than pleasure.
Either way, it was premature. Downing Street is hoping that the noisy fury around the NHS reforms will die down now that they aren't the subject of legislative trench warfare, but no-one is so naive as to think the issue will go away. Every increase in waiting times, every closed ward, every bungled operation will now be firmly blamed (fairly or not) on the choices made by the coalition. This is one area where "clearing up Labour's mess" really doesn't apply as a defence.
It has been something of a mystery to me as to why the Lib Dems - who have been well aware of the political toxicity of the health reforms for over a year - didn't demand that they be dropped. I know that there was some regret in Nick Clegg's team that the "pause" declared in the passage of the bill was not turned into a full stop last year. I also know that quite a few senior Tories and Downing Street aides came to the same view and rather wished the Lib Dems had killed the monster when they had the chance.
But at that time, Clegg was still very much concerned about coalition being seen to work as a form of government and was wary of obstructing such a big public sector reform. The Tories would have milked the episode for plenty of concessions of their own. Eventually, the Prime Minister decided that it was better to take the pain of trying to implement the reforms than absorb the humiliation of a gigantic u-turn (especially since an irreversible budget squeeze ensured a dose of NHS pain either way). Once Cameron had made that call, the Lib Dems fell into line.
But if they had really wanted to stop the thing, they still could have insisted. And the threat of being contaminated with Tory toxicity on the health service was substantial. So why did Clegg still press ahead? One explanation given to me recently is highly revealing about the way coalition works. There were, I am told, senior Lib Dem discussions until very late in the day about whether or not to kill the NHS bill. The key problem, it was decided - no doubt with the help of dark warnings from the prime minister - was that the quid pro quo for blocking Tory reform of the health service would be total Lib Dem ownership of the issue in the future. In other words, if Clegg wanted to block Lansley, he would have to accept having a Lib Dem secretary of state replace him in the next reshuffle and take responsibility for whatever happened next.
The message from Cameron was: you break it, you fix it. Wisely, Clegg decided that was not an opportunity he felt like taking. That explains also why there has been chatter about a Lib Dem taking the health portfolio in the near future. They weren't rumours, they were threats. I'm now fairly sure it won't happen. That doesn't mean Lansley won't be shuffled out - but he'll have to be replaced by another Tory.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















20 comments
We all know, do we not, that every politician who is not a Labour politician is taking bribes from Big Business. Labour politicians, on the other hand, toil selflessly out of pure love of humanity. Why did they make such a total balls-up last time then, and why are so many of them in prison?
In light of what we now know; correction; what we have always suspected, that Tory policy is for sale to the highest Donnor; Labour should now asked to see all communications between their Donnors and the government before it all gets shredded away.
We must start calling for it rightaway. Gets your pens out all bloggers, journalist and those commenting on articles.
This week is; 'lets see your donnor communication' week Mr. Cameron.
Fergus, just because we don't like this government, doesn't mean we love Labour. Its a rubbish way of arguing to bring labour into every criticism of the current government.
Sorry, I don't get the idea of Cameron forcing the health brief on Clegg as a punishment. Surely he would have leapt at the chance to come to Cameron's rescue on the NHS after Lansley has screweed it up so badly? For one thing, it would be very difficult to make such a complete cobblers of it, but also the one good thing about the debate over the past year is that a consensus in emerging on which reforms have support (greater GP ownership of commissioning) and which don't (wholesale reorganisation and privatisation of the middle management tier).
Surely there's enough clarity now for a sensible politician to rework the pig's ear of a bill into something more palatable?
Damn, I'd temporarily forgotten that sensible politician is an oxymoron.
@Fergus Pickering
We all know that all politicians of every hue are taking bribes. The bribes in this instance (or funding as it is officially known) are very likely to have a causal correlation on the outcome of a policy decision. Why? Becasue a private health care provider funded the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems helped to push through a bill that was less popular with the public than the Iraq war. It's not much of a leap to see a correlation. It's not much more of a leap to see it as a causal correlation. There is plenty you can argue about the failures of Labour- those made in their 13 years in power don't stack up against the practically daily blunders of the coalition in their less than two years in power-one thing stands out for Labour above anything else-they demonstrably improved the NHS.
Political and moral cowardice.
Nothing to do with funding from Private Health Care organisations then? People can dodge around it all they like but the reason it has gone through is because private interests want it. In a true democracy the outcry against it would have seen it stopped in its tracks.
It's nothing to do with how similar the Health and Social Care bill is to the pledges made in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, then?
Let's get this straight, in the course of a week the coalition managed to pave the way for the destruction of the NHS and deliver one of the most ill conceived and received budgets in the history of the country? All of this despite warnings from experts in both the fields of economics and health care who told them that to follow the course they have plotted was folly. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking that they were self interested feudal paternalist who want to destroy democracy and return the masses to serfdom. Seriously, this government should come with a warning: This government could seriously damage your democracy.
The total news blackout by the BBC was no accident, the government did not want people to know.
The Lib Dems are utter Tory scum,
Shirley Williams should change her name to Lady Ga Ga.
Local elections destroy this vermin, we will rebuild our NHS ans we will have our revenge.
The article describes all this in terms of it being a Tory-Lib Dem issue, a piece of narrow politics, and of who would replace whom. Yet the damage has been done to the NHS and that is what concerns people in the mass, not who's up, who's down.
The Lib Dems could have stopped this bill but didn't. The Tories and Downing Street advisers mentioned, could have stopped this bill but didn't. And there have been far too many comments along the way about these ones or those ones supposedly being disturbed or appalled at the developing shambles: not enough to distance themselves from it, though, and to have voted against. Getting the bill passed while wanting to encourage the belief that the passers of it weren't really involved. It passed because of cowardice and connivance. However, they'll rue the day they thought they could get away with it, and the campaign against it is just passing into its next stage.
Nathaniel Myers write, 'It's nothing to do with how similar the Health and Social Care bill is to the pledges made in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, then?'
Shirley Williams and the rest of them seemed to miss that one.
What a load of fucking nonsense, if Clegg had any balls he would have told Cameron to drop the bill and if Cameron had tried to get more concessions out of them in return, he would take the lib dems out of the coalition all together.
Be clear about the real reason they've backed the bill, they're getting funding from private health firms, it's that simple. They've sold a lot of people down the river for party funding.
Whatever, Clegg and the libdems have behaved disgracefully. It wont be forgotten.
There is a movement afoot by many veteran patients of the NHS to cut out the middle-man, the GP.
Recently, some have noted a distinct reluctance by their GPs against sending to hospital for investigation/ treatment.
Some have recounted as evidence past experience when GPs referred them to hospital for various services without delaying tactics - such as 'See how you feel next week/month'.
Of course there are 'horror' stories but relying on a GPs' chairside manner when there are numerous medical aid machines and devices available at hospital besides teams of experts to run them seems daft.
Open more Polyclinics - yes! But the medical practice is a thoroughly antiquated system.
GPs are in most case nothing but a 'post office' or referral point. It's the potential delay in referring patients to hospital to receive timely and effective treatment that worries us.
Oh Our Aching Backs
This is tosh right from the start, for one simple reason: Cameron could NOT appoint a Lib Dem health secreatary, because in this Coalition, the parties 'own' the posts. A Tory must be replaced by a Tory, a Lib Dem must be replaced by a Lib Dem. The Business Secretary will always be a Lib Dem; the Health Secretary will always be a Tory.
Clegg is a little arse licking shite who has no standing at all.
What do you expect from such a fucking useless individual?
What a load of tosh, was Scumeron threatening them when they opportunistically chose to renege over their pledge on tuition fees? Did he threaten to replace the whole worthless bunch of them if they chose not to back the Millionaires budget? Do these space hoppers really believe that the entire population in this country are as stupid as the 10% of the population who supposedly still back them? Give me a break or better still give us all a break and disappear for good.
lib dems are as right wing as the tory shit they 're supposedly tempering
"But the NHS was not broken"
So the premis of the artical is incorrect.The truth is the LibDem orangefookers agreed with the policy of privatisation and they will pay the price at the next election.