Is the NHS Cameron’s Clause 4?

David Cameron has been trying hard over the last week or so to reassert the Conservatives as the “party of the NHS”.  Labour politicians were quick to grasp the opportunity to brand the Tories as hypocrites after Tory MEP Daniel Hannan trashed the NHS as a “60 year mistake” during the the US debate on Obama’s healthcare reforms.

As noted here previously, Cameron’s strategists know the NHS is a key election battleground.  Convincing the public that the NHS is safe in their hands is a crucial part of their election strategy. 

Recent research from Ipsos MORI shows that they are right to prioritise this.  Ninety-six per cent of the public say the NHS will be an important factor in deciding how they vote at the next general election, compared with 93% for the economy, 92% crime, and 85% schools.

At a hastily arranged speech last week, Cameron sought to reassure the public and reasserted his commitment to real-terms increases in NHS funding should he win the next election.

But it seems Cameron might find his own party rather harder to win over than the public.  While few have been as outspoken as Hannan, he is certainly not alone in his party in voicing dissatisfaction with his leaders’s stance on the NHS.  A recent survey by Com Res found that two-thirds of his MPs disagree with the pledge on real-terms funding increases.  And this weekend another MEP, Charles Tannock, re-opened the debate on introducing charges, suggesting that patients should pay £10 for visiting their GP.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Cameron should be worried that his party are openly disagreeing with him.  But should he be?  Despite Labour scoring some initial hits after Hannan’s comments, Cameron has come back well, and the media profile of the issue has allowed him to get a great deal of coverage for his messages about the NHS.

In much the same way as Blair picked a fight with his own party to ditch Clause 4 (the part of the Labour party constitution that committed them to nationalisation) in order to prove to the country that his party truly was New Labour, Cameron can use the row over NHS funding to demonstrate that his is a caring brand of conservatism.

The difference, of course, was that Clause 4 was an anachronistic symbol of Labour’s heritage.  The future of the NHS, on the other hand, is more relevant and more vital than ever as we face the challenges of an aging population. 

To make his point, Cameron has to be seen to take on his party and win.  It might seem like a challenge.  But, as the election looms nearer, what Tory, sensing the prospect of electoral victory, won’t roll over, deciding to save the debate until they are in power? That’s when we’ll find out if the Conservatives are the party of the NHS.