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

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.