A protest in support of the NHS at last year's Labour conference. Source: Getty
Show Hide image

NHS funding is a taboo topic for all parties

The Tories blew their chance to be trusted on health and Labour doesn't want to talk about where the money will come from.

It is hard to think of a policy that Labour is less likely to adopt for its 2015 manifesto than the flat rate £10-per-month “membership fee” for the NHS proposed by Lord Warner, a Blair-era health minister now sitting in the Lords. Jamie Reed MP, shadow health minister has said “this is not something Labour would ever consider.” He might have added re-introduction of small pox as a health policy  closer to Ed Miliband’s preferred general election offer.

When Labour has a vast lead over the Tories as the party to be trusted with the health service, anything that sounds as if it undermines the founding principle of universal access free at the point of use is out of the question. The problem is that Labour has signed up to tight spending constraint if it forms a government and under those circumstances NHS funding is certain to become a volatile issue. People are living longer, suffering from chronic conditions that are expensive to treat – especially if they result in prolonged hospital stays – and costs in medicine tend to rise faster than inflation. Even without the ongoing fiscal crunch, this would be an issue of existential urgency for the system as it is currently configured.

MPs in all parties know this but it has become hard to say so aloud for fear of facing the follow-up question – what would you do about it? In theory, health spending this parliament has been “ring-fenced” but it doesn’t feel that way in the context of local authority cuts, which have severe consequences for social care, and “efficiency savings” that amount to real terms cuts when imposed in a climate of rising costs. GPs say privately that a growing part of what they do amounts to managing patient expectations downward and rationing.

This model of service erosion is no-one’s preferred policy but it is the inevitable consequence of persistent failure of political courage on all sides. The Tories had their moment to bring public opinion with them in a conversation about reform and they blew it with a vast restructuring that alienated pretty much everyone apart from private healthcare providers. The Lib Dems are desperate to scrub away as much trace of complicity with the Tories’ mangled reforms as they can before polling day, although Nick Clegg was a prominent co-mangler.

Labour, meanwhile, does have a plan to transform the provision of health services – the “whole person care” idea developed by Andy Burnham. This puts the emphasis on public health and investment in prevention to save costs down the line. It also envisages the merger of health and social care.

There are obstacles. First, even if the numbers can be made to add up over the long-term, it looks like a hefty up-front expense and yet another epic re-organisation to boot. Second, Ed Miliband’s office is deeply suspicious of Burnham, believing him to be building a support base in the party machine and manoeuvring into a position to be ready for a leadership contest in the event that Labour loses the next election. With an eye on those ambitions, neither Miliband nor Ed Balls seems in a massive hurry to give the shadow Health Secretary the kind of boost that would come from the adoption of his health plans as a flagship reform proposal going into the general election.

Finally, there is a feeling among some Labour MPs and activists that owning up to the imminent cost crunch in the health service and offering a complicated reform agenda to address it just confuses the message, when all the voters need to know between now and May 2015 is that “you can’t trust the Tories with the NHS.” This school of opposition would gladly build an entire campaign around the anti-Conservative message played on a loop alongside pictures of David Cameron and George Obsorne looking smug interspersed with reminders of their “tax cut for millionaires.”

The reality is that Labour expected problems with the NHS to be more extreme and more salient in political debate than they have proved to be so far. (That isn't meant as a denial of the severity of the problem, only as an observation that they haven't blasted other matters off the front pages.) It is an issue where the opposition has a huge potential advantage but only if voters think it is a matter of such urgency as to trump other questions when weighing up who to vote for – the economy; immigration; crime; education etc. Labour’s dilemma is that the obvious way to make more political noise around the health service is to talk about the funding crisis but doing so invites scrutiny of the opposition’s proposed solution. And that is a conversation the party is not yet ready to have.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.