Explaining the Coalition’s NHS Reforms in Two Sentences.

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:

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.’

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:

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. Accordingly, we are transferring power from those who know you least to the people that know you and your family best – the family GP. 

Perhaps this isn’t what Lansley is trying to do. I don’t know. It’s not an area I’m very interested in. But this, details* permitting, would seem an obvious place to begin the presentational battle. Patients and GPs are Good Things, Bureaucracies and Impersonal Service-Providers are Bad Things. Plus, there’s a nod to history and the suggestion that these reforms are reassuringly consistent with whatever the NHS is supposed to be. How can that be a Bad Thing?

Is it true? That’s a different matter and a question for other people to answer.

*The detail matters too but you need to persuade the public in broad terms first. That means the government needs to soothe as well as persuade.