Though Cowards Flinch

In 2009 George Osborne said:

The fact that people in the City give us money, even though we are promising tougher regulation, is a sign that many people in the City understand that there needs to be change.

Osborne once sold himself as the Chancellor who would be progressive and tough on banks, carry out well needed reform, and still walk away with votes from the city, because he was decisive, on top of things, and they recognised the need and public thirst for change.

So what, 2 years on, was the change the bankers could believe in?

Britain’s biggest banks are to be given until 2019 – longer than had been expected – to implement radical reform of their operations to prevent another taxpayer bailout of the system.

Of course, George Osborne welcomed Sir John Vickers’ findings, or what the Independent Commission on Banking have admitted were “deliberately composed of moderate elements” – but, given the almost universal agreement that high street and speculative arms of banking should be separated (apart from Bob Diamond and a few others), one wonders why the ICB stopped short of a recommendation for a full break-up, plumping only for a ring fencing of the two activities.

(On the subject of Bob Diamond, he met with the Chancellor on the 1st of this month to request he delay banking reforms, possibly repeating previous threats that he’ll take Barclays and leave the UK. Just saying).

As an Independent leader article put it: “ring-fencing still leaves open the possibility of banks stealthily dismantling the internal demarcation over time.”

I guess with (not so) tough measures like this, it’s obvious why big shots in the city are bankrolling Osborne – they want a man who can get things done for them.

David Cameron is playing an interesting game at the moment. After promising to “cut the deficit, not the NHS” he went and did both anyway. In fact he went further still: NHS reforms include abolishing Primary Care Trusts and handing 60% of the NHS budget to new GP-led consortia.

Under Cameron’s watch, health secretary Andrew Lansley has done nothing else but implement the very measures the Tories have always wanted to do to the NHS, but never before being so stupid as to.

In return for Lansley’s loyalty to the cause, Cameron has given the minister a cold shoulder.

Nicholas Watt put it this way:

In public the prime minister expresses support for the hapless minister. In private few are left in doubt that the minister has been placed on the naughty step or, in the case of Andrew Lansley, on the you-have-had-the-political-stuffing-knocked-out-of-you step.

The BMA stopped short recently of delivering Lansley a vote of no confidence, concentrating on his poor reforms only, but that’s not the message put out today by nurses who will debate a motion of “no confidence” – informed in part by Lansley’s refusal to address the Royal College of Nursing conference in Liverpool, instead limiting himself to a 45-minute Q&A with 50 select nurses.

If that wasn’t bad enough for the minister, his spats with Lord Owen – who has called on Cameron to “replace existing health ministers” – and Norman Lamb have caused a public embarrassment.

The influential Lamb, who has threatened to resign unless the government acts favourably upon a series of demands on the NHS reforms, joins a number of rebel Lib Dem figures who have proposed changes to Lansley’s plans.

Cameron has responded by saying he regrets “charging ahead” on reform without support – a change of heart which will not bode well for the health minister, who will be first in the firing line if Cameron wants to save face.

Clearly Lansley should be sacked on merit of his terrible reforms, which threaten the very heart and soul of the NHS, and aims only to swamp the service with pro-privatisation measures.

But we should remember the minister is merely the architect of the plans. The Tories under Cameron are only delivering the destructive ethos they know and love.

In a thinly veiled attempt to rock the boat a bit, Rawnsley asked on Sunday:

Andrew Lansley is clearly in trouble … Does Mr Cameron need to find himself a new health secretary?