Pre-election squabble doesn’t point to hung parliament harmony

Following the current mania for three-way arguments, the
NHS Confederation and The King’s Fund yesterday hosted a pre-election debate, with the health
secretary Andy Burnham and his two opposite numbers, Tory Andrew Lansley and Lib-Dem Norman Lamb.

 

It is an interesting format – immeasurably more
interesting than giving them a stage individually. Ideologically, the three are hard to differentiate – all of
them try to come across as the most passionate believer in the NHS, and many of
their policies overlap.

 

So unsurprisingly, and entertainingly, put them on stage
together and they’ll just slag each other off.

 

Andrew Lansley fared worst, taking punishing blows from
Norman Lamb about the way his personal office is funded, while Andy Burnham
laid into his ‘two-faced’ electioneering.

 

Even the debate’s chair, the BBC’s Sarah Montague, stuck the
boot in a couple of times. ‘Enough!’ she screamed at him, abruptly stopping a flustered Lansley
mid-flow.

 

All very fun for those of us who’ve had to sit through the three leaders’ tired, repetitive speeches about ‘quality’ and ‘efficiency’ too many
times over the last few months.

 

But then it dawned on me, watching the squabbling: If we
get a hung parliament, it will be like this in DoH headquarters every single day.

Tags:
  • Martin Gray

    If a debate/discussion turns into a slagging match where is the point in it? What useful informnation can the audience gain that will help them make an informed decision?

    I doubt there will be harmony in a hung parliament, but then perhaps that is a good thing; at least it will hopefully stop the undisputed intereference in the running of the NHS. However there is no indication of any control system and that ,in turn, is very worrying.

Latest jobs Jobs web feed

More General Practice Jobs