Nick’s interesting and timely post on postcode lotteries got me thinking more broadly about the government’s reforms to the NHS.
I would consider myself a fairly close follower of government policy and proposals. Most I like, some I don’t, others I don’t really care.
From these NHS reforms, I like the idea that I will be able to choose which GP I go to – whether it’s near home, or work, or whatever. I like that I will be able to decide whether I go to a hospital that is near home, or near my parents, or which has the absolutely best surgeon in the UK for my operation, or whatever. I like that my GP will be accountable to me and will help me to choose the best treatment for me. And I like that my treatment will still be free at the point of use when I need it – and I don’t care who provides it as long as their standards are high.
But if you were a normal person watching the news, I don’t think that’s what you’d understand from these proposals. I think you’d think that the government was abolishing the NHS, taking away your treatment, privatising everything, and closing your local hospital to boot. And probably introducing euthanasia by the back door.
Why is that? Partly, of course, it’s the fact that it’s easier to oppose than to suggest sensible alternatives. Partly, it’s because of the ‘evil Tory’ myths which have built up over the years and which still haven’t gone away. Those are things we can only fix over time.
But in the immediate term, there is a serious problem of communication from the government. Nothing is put into an overall narrative of why the government is doing what it’s doing (I had a go at this over New Year). Nothing is explained in pithy sentences that are clear and easy to understand. Too much is phrased in terms of what a policy is not, rather than what it is. And because of that, opponents of a policy have a much easier time of it. Basically, the government is always defending rather than attacking. I’ve written before about why this is so damaging.
You can debate whether it’s because there is so much going on, or whether it’s because there is no central authority figure pushing back so that a proper communications strategy is in place on every single policy from every single department, or whether, far from having fewer special advisers as promised, the government should employ more.
But whatever the reason, if this government and coalition are to be a success, it’s something that’s going to have to improve.
No related posts.
RT @PlatformTen: New blogpost: What do NHS reforms mean – and why govt needs to get off back foot in communicating http://bit.ly/hzvZ6o
Pingback: Tweets that mention Platform 10 » Blog Archive » But what does it mean for me? -- Topsy.com
@alexmassie @johnrentoul Good question… http://bit.ly/hzvZ6o or http://bit.ly/h5jMn6 Something’s not working.
Here’s a quick slogan for the NHS reforms off the cuff:
“Making the NHS work for YOU”
Charles, I think that gets to the point nicely.
Couldn’t agree more Fiona – communicating ineffectively is perhaps the single biggest weakness in the Government at the moment.
It was a huge reason why so many people turned up to protest about the university funding and will turn up today for EMA. Wheeling out monotone aged politcians just isn’t enough to explain to the masses the benefits of this change in policy.
Local government is similarly awful at communicating to its residents. Gone are the days when everyone turns up to ‘council meetings’ and the flimsy newsletters were effective. A radical overhauling of local authority websites and increased use of social and digital communications techniques is drastically needed to re-enfranchise voters.
Excellent salvo Fiona.
To be fair, Andrew Lansley’s daily presence on PM is an interesting innovation, and allows for a proper discussion – but how many normal people really listen to all of it?
Similarly, there are two long but good articles on ConHome – one from Andrew himself, and one mythbusting list. Both are useful but how many people will read the whole thing?
I know that the debate is this week in Parliament so that is why the focus this week. But most of these ideas were outlined before the end of the summer – the government should have been ready with a positive communications package, rather than waiting till there was uproar.
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Defining the future
WHY, Andrew Lansley, did you say on @channel4news that the policy has not communicated ITSELF? It can’t – it’s your job http://bit.ly/hzvZ6o
@betapolitics @platformten Agreed – shocking Freudian slip – distancing self from issue by claiming inanimate thing can perform act
@RupertWhite @platformten It’s ignoring politics that has got the Gov into this mess. You can’t wish away politics in, well, politics.
@betapolitics @platformten It’s ignoring grammar that’s really got my goat. A point can’t communicate itself. Ooh it makes me mad