George Osborne and David Cameron speak to business leaders at the AQL centre on February 5, 2015 in Leeds. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Osborne's dramatic Manchester NHS plan is a dangerous distraction

The Chancellor's politically-motivated project undermines the goal of the national integration of health and social care. 

The most significant political story today is George Osborne's confirmation that he intends to hand Greater Manchester control of the region's £6bn health and social care budget (a quarter of total government spending in the area). Never in the history of the NHS has there been such devolution in England. The announcement was due to be made on Friday, during a visit by Osborne to the area, but the Chancellor's plans were foiled after the Manchester Evening News got hold of a draft "memorandum of understanding" between the region's councils and the Treasury. 

This being Osborne, who remains the Conservatives' chief electoral strategist, the politics are crucial. He has framed the move, which would take effect from April 2016, as part of his drive to create a "northern powerhouse", a project with the political aim of decontaminating the Conservative brand in that region (one inspired by Osborne's special adviser Neil O'Brien, the former director of Policy Exchange). The Tories are also hailing the proposed integration of health and social care spending as evidence that they are making the running on a cause that Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, has long championed. 

But if the politics are clear, the policy is not. By promising Greater Manchester control of health spending, the Conservatives have set a precedent that several other areas will want to follow (Tessa Jowell, the Labour London mayoral candidate, was swift to demand equivalent powers for the capital). In so doing, they have driven a coach and horses through Labour's proposed national integration of health and social care. As Burnham noted in his response, the resultant danger is the creation of a "two-tier" NHS which destroys the principle of a universal and comprehensive service. In the middle of the greatest funding squeeze in the NHS's history, Osborne's "devo Manc" project, which would likely necessitate another reorganisation, risks being a dangerous distraction. Under Burnham's alternative vision, health and social care would be nationally integrated (producing up to £6bn in savings) with individual local authorities and GP commissioning bodies working in harness to build new services. 

Osborne's proposal of stand-alone devolution to Manchester resembles an answer in search of a problem. Worse, it threatens to create new dysfunctions. At the last count, the region's hospitals were running a deficit of £40m. Who will pick up the bill in the event of a crisis? Though the Conservatives will protest otherwise, the move risks being the first step in the ultimate unravelling of a truly national health service. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496