In Good Health?

11 April

 

• Labour fail to match the Conservatives’ spending pledges on the NHS.

 

• Shadow Cabinet tensions come to the surface.

 

• The next leader will have to calculate if the fiscal straitjacket can be loosened without losing votes.

 

 

‘A GUN WILL be fired towards the end of the second half of this performance.’ That was the warning sign on the stairway of the venue Labour chose for the launch of its ‘mini-manifesto’ on health. Now, back in November 2014 the BBC’s then Political Editor, Nick Robinson reported ‘a phrase the Labour leader uses in private is that he wants to “weaponise” the NHS’ – but surely this was ridiculous!

Perhaps the firearm had something to do with one of the works staged by the resident amateur operatic society in the Victorian-era Guiseley Theatre near Leeds which today played host to Ed Miliband, the Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham and the Shadow Care Minister, Liz Kendall. In other words, the then leader of the Labour Party, and two MPs who wanted to succeed him, all took to the stage – and it made for an occasionally nail-biting performance. Liz Kendall – whose former partner is a comedian – was the warm-up act but both Burnham and Miliband strode the stage simultaneously. There may not have been guns involved, but they were at times at daggers drawn. Andy Burnham, said, ‘When I am health secretary’ then glanced to Ed Miliband and added ‘hopefully…’ But confirmation came there none. Miliband hadn’t just defeated his own brother for the party leadership, but also Ed Balls, Diane Abbott – and Andy Burnham. He knew that his Shadow Health Secretary still coveted the top job and although he had confirmed that Ed Balls would be chancellor if he won, Miliband gave Burnham no similar assurances about his future. Burnham subsequently complained about a lack of consultation even over the health aspects of Labour’s manifesto and a watering down of the commitment to a more comprehensive health and social care service.

But it had been the Conservatives who had been quicker on the draw on the NHS today. Without bothering to set out how the money would be raised, the chancellor George Osborne and the health secretary Jeremy Hunt had said they would meet the £8 billion which Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS in England, calculated would be necessary – over and above efficiency savings – by 2020.

Although Labour had a clear lead in the polls on the NHS, the Conservative ploy did wound them on the day when they wanted the media to focus on their own plans. Suddenly, the Labour pledge of £2.5 million looked puny. But they came back with a confident response. They had already decided the key message they wanted from the launch of the actual manifesto at the start of the following week was one of fiscal responsibility. It was just possible that the Conservative commitment – in an attempt to ‘de-weaponise’ the NHS – might backfire. So they decided against trying to match the £8 billion. Instead, Miliband delivered a memorable line: ‘You can’t fund the NHS with an IOU.’ He then attacked the Tories for irresponsibility and a lack of credibility – spraying around unfunded commitments like there was no tomorrow. Publicly at least, he seemed to relish the role reversal.

Ed Miliband wasn’t so confident when I spoke to him after the event, on Labour’s battle bus en route to Leeds station. I reported on that night’s PM programme on Radio 4 that senior sources had begun describing Labour’s £2.5 billion as a ‘down-payment.’ Those sources could not be more senior than the leader of the opposition. He said that Labour would always give the NHS what was necessary. But he had a problem. Everything in the manifesto had to be costed so Labour could not be accused of plans to ‘max out the nation’s credit card’ again. So as resources became available, of course the NHS would be a priority. But it would lack credibility to scrabble around to match the Conservatives’ ‘off-the-cuff’ announcement.

This inability to ‘match-fund’ the Conservatives nationally was causing problems in local campaigns too. Senior Party officials say that from an organisational point of view, the failure to establish fiscal credibility before the formal campaign got under way had proved costly. That’s because with more trust in their ability to run the economy, the Conservatives could – to an extent – roll out the pork barrel. Conservative candidates had very targeted messages about what local improvements would be funded on their re-election. As Labour had more heavy-lifting to do to regain trust with the nation’s purse strings, their local candidates were more constrained in what they could say a Labour government would deliver for their area. While there may have been too many national ‘retail offers’ – such as the energy price freeze – for some in the party, others say there were too few at grassroots level.

But the message on financial stability and responsibility was about to be put in the political equivalent of neon lighting.