PMQs review: Miliband keeps his cool and wins another NHS battle

The Labour leader refused to rise to Cameron's child benefit jibes and left the PM struggling to explain away the A&E crisis.

Even before Ed Miliband got to his feet at today's PMQs, David Cameron went on the attack over his U-turn on child benefit. Reminding Miliband that he had criticised the changes in his first-ever outing at the despatch box, Cameron derided Labour's "total and utter confusion" and quipped (in response to a question from Douglas Carswell on a recall bill): "I hope the leader of the opposition will recall his attack on child benefit". He topped that later with this line: "I know I've been in Ibiza but they've been taking policy-altering substances".

But Miliband, his zen-like calm on full display, refused to rise to Cameron's bait and challenged him over the new figures showing that A&E waiting times have reached a nine year high. As before, Cameron blamed Labour's 2004 decision to remove responsibility from GPs for out-of-hours care but Miliband was on strong ground, noting that waiting times fell between 2004 and 2010, that GPs' leader Clare Gerada had described this explanation as "lazy", and that doctors blamed the upheaval caused by the government's NHS reorganisation. The voters, weary of Cameron's excuses, are likely to side with Labour, which now enjoys a 15 per cent poll lead on health (compared to a Tory lead of 3 per cent in 2010).

Cameron, who has chosen to maintain the NHS ring-fence in the Spending Review, attempted to carve out a dividing line when he claimed that Labour would "cut the NHS", but it's worth noting that Miliband last month stated that a Labour government would protect the NHS. He told Nick Robinson: "We're not going to be cutting the health service, I'm very clear about that. We will always be protecting the health service and will always make it a priority." Labour won't allow the Tories such an easy chance to claim that they are "the party of the NHS".

When the Labour frontbench alerted Cameron to as much, he replied: "That's changed as well! We've got a new health policy! Honestly, there are so many U-turns they should be having a grand prix." But while politicians and journalists obsess over U-turns, the voters are more concerned with whether the party in question has the right policy (and the majority supported the child benefit cuts). If Labour's move on child benefit helps convince a sceptical public that it would be fiscally responsible in government then it will be Miliband who gains.

A more awkward moment came when Cameron, in response to a piece in today's Daily Mail reporting that half of the shadow cabinet now support an EU referendum, asked those who did to raise their hands. When none did, he declared: "the people's party doesn't trust the people". It is precisely for fear of this line of attack that the likes of Ed Balls and Jon Cruddas have urged Miliband to commit to holding a referendum after 2015. As we get closer to the vote on the Tories' EU referendum bill on 5 July, expect Cameron to take every opportunity to make hay with this divide. 

Ed Miliband at Prime Minister's Questions.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On the important issues, Louise Casey all too often has little to say

Far from moving the debate on, this new report on integration adds little to the report I commissioned in 2001. 

For 15 years, “numerous government reports on community cohesion and integration have not been implemented with enough force or consistency” concludes Louise Casey’s review of  integration.  The government’s lukewarm response suggests their effort will be as “diluted and muddled” as all the rest.

There’s a deeper reason why governments shy away from the measures that are needed. The report's wealth of data sets out a stark if sometimes contestable picture of a divided society.  But no amount of data can really bring the lives of our fellow citizens to life. As the Brexit vote underlined, this is now a nation divided by class, geography, education, wealth, opportunity and race. Those divisions colour the way we live our lives, the way we see problems in society, the relations we have with others, and our political choices. The report, like many before it, stops short of setting out that reality. It’s easier to pretend that most of us pretty much agree on most things; but just few people don’t agree and they must be the problem. Predictably, much of the early coverage has focussed on the Muslim community and new migrants. If only it were so easy.

According to Casey “in this country, we take poverty, social exclusion, social justice and social mobility seriously” and we do it “across political divides”. Apparently “creating a fair, just society where everyone can prosper and get on” is a cornerstone of British values. Yet for page after page the report chronicles the serial failure of this benign consensus to tackle educational under-performance, and economic and racial disadvantage. If we all agree, how come we haven't done anything about it?

These problems are not certainly easy to solve, but more lip service is paid to tackling them than effort. The practical material issues documented here need addressing, but punches are pulled when hard answers are needed. Given the dramatic impact of mass migration on cohesion, is integration possible while current rates of immigration persist? Can we find the political will to tackle poverty and disadvantage when those who might benefit from the effort are divided against each other by suspicion, race, geography and values? After all, rather than progressive policies producing a cohesive society, social unity is the precondition for the introduction of progressive policies.

We don't actually actually agree on what our “fundamental values” mean in practice. We can all sign up to democracy and the rule of law, but as soon as those are put into practice – see the court case on Article 50 – we are divided. When judges are popularly seen as “enemies of the people” and a vote in an elected parliament as a threat to democracy, in what sense are law and democracy fundamental?

Casey usefully highlights how treating homeless families equally, irrespective of ethnicity and length of residence can create the perception that minorities are being favoured over long standing residents. Our differing views on what is “just” and how “fairness” are defined can tear us apart. Is it fair to favour the newcomer over the indigenous? Is it just to put length of time on the waiting list above housing need? We often don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of other points of view, let alone try to find common ground.

The continual invocation of Britain and British values lends an air of unreality to the report.  Most people in England include British in their identity, but Englishness and English interests are of growing importance. In a worrying development, some areas of England  may be polarising between a white Englishness and an ethnic minority Britishness. Integration won't happen without a shared national story that combines a unifying national identity with the acceptance that we all have more than one identity that matters to us. Ignoring the reality of complex and multiple identities closes off one essential way forward.

None of this means that the criticism of some reactionary and occasionally dangerous ideas and practices in the Muslim community should be ignored and not confronted. But in a country where the established church opposes homosexual relationships and praise for Vladimir Putin's Russia is now mainstream politics it is hard to believe that all our problems can be reduced to the behaviour of a minority of a minority community.

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University