I’m sure James is right and that the government’s NHS problems – a political difficulty that may also be a policy conundrum – ensure that the NHS will be “rewarded” with more money and the coalition will use increased funding as a defence against criticisms of its reforms. It matters little that this accepts Labour’s eternal argument that spending=investment=love=ponies-for-all. The NHS is not to be subjected to the usual rules of either policy or politics.
Meanwhile, in his Mail on Sunday column James had this:
I’m pretty sure I don’t understand Lansley’s reforms but I also reckon that you probably don’t need as many as three sentences. To wit:Lansley’s main problem is that hardly anyone understands what he is trying to do. As one colleague laments: ‘Andrew knows everything but can’t explain it in three simple sentences. And if you can’t do that in modern politics, you’re in real trouble.’
Our reforms to the NHS honour the spirit of its founding: we want a flexible health service run by doctors for their patients, not one run by bureaucrats more responsive to the interests of service-providers than patients.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33b44/33b44f1966e79a8bbc533866eeb159e672891b43" alt=""
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in