In a bid to decontaminate their brand, the Tories have deliberately aped many Labour policies, not least in health, education and welfare. As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. For those of us who support much of New Labour’s reform programme, particularly in the public services, the differences between our policies and theirs is nuanced. But as Lord Mandelson said in his speech to Labour’s conference in Brighton, the Tories may ‘have skimmed the headline summary of the New Labour manual. But they never bothered to read the book.’ In many areas, the Conservatives are keeping their cards close to their chest, though we now know enough about their policy direction to analyse the thinking behind it and some of the top-line announcements. This is the first in an occasional Progress series looking at Conservative policy in the run-up to the general election and where New Labour can draw the dividing lines

Healthcare

The Conservatives are very confused on their health policy. On the one hand they are keen to adopt some of Labour’s focus on the user of the service, on the other they have been completely ambushed by the service producers, namely the BMA which represents GPs and consultants. Almost half of all GPs are said to support the Conservatives, which is not surprising since as small businessmen, they have resented Labour’s attempts to extend opening hours and build polyclinics. Andrew Lansley has said the Conservatives will ‘put power and responsibility back in the hands of GPs’. Read instead – the Conservatives will take power away from users so that the relationship returns to one where the professional is king.

Even the BMA doesn’t support the Tories’ plans to hand all commissioning responsibilities to GPs, however. Quite rightly, those decisions need to be made for the benefit of the whole community rather than just individual patients. Doctors are concerned that their duty to act in the patient’s interest will be compromised. Who, for example, would make difficult decisions about spending money on expensive treatments?

When it comes to the use of the private sector in healthcare provision, Labour has been keen to use it where it would improve outcomes and waiting times. The Conservatives seem to have no such criteria to determine when it is appropriate to use the private sector and would open up the NHS to any willing provider.

The Tories are also opposed to Labour’s review of A&E and maternity services which has arisen from many years of discussion about the need to rebalance the focus and funding from acute to primary care, hence Labour’s plans for polyclinics which the Tories see as an attack on GPs rather than increasing convenience for patients. This shows a distinct lack of knowledge about where the vast majority of people receive their treatment and how real improvements could be made to care through investing in early intervention and public health programmes.

Finally, the Conservatives say they will make all new clinically effective drugs available, which would be a utopia if this were the case, but completely unaffordable. NICE already determines which drugs are clinically effective, but sometimes they are cost-prohibitive for the amount of benefit they eventually provide to the patient. Labour set up NICE to take politicians out of the treatment decision-making chain – it’s not great to see the Tories trying to get back into it.

Education

This is an area where Conservative policy most closely mirrors Labour’s. From accepting the academy model and saying it will be rolled out to primary schools, to announcing a new partnership with Teach First to train graduates, the Tories have adopted many of New Labour’s education reforms wholesale. Much of this should be applauded and is an example of Labour’s success in moving the right to the centre ground. But there are real dangers behind the red-tinted exterior of Gove’s reforms. The first is that Tory opposition to floor targets and standards will make it difficult to achieve the increase in standards which Labour has achieved over the last 12 years – particularly in relation to GCSE grades.

Second, Gove seems completely open to letting new faith schools set up without the requisite appeals process which allows local communities to object on the grounds that it could increase segregation or disrupt social cohesion. Third, the Tories would topslice 15% from the Building Schools for the Future programme and use it instead to give to parents and other chains of education providers who want new schools. Given that the money through BSF has pretty much been allocated and money has already been spent on consultants and architects, this seems a particularly arbitrary reallocation from students who are already in school, to a school which doesn’t yet exist. Fourth, New Labour’s plans for increasing diversity in school provision have not fully replicated the Swedish model in that they have not allowed private providers to make any profit from running schools. Gove has not yet ruled out letting providers make a profit out of schools, but this runs contrary to much of our education heritage – even private schools are charities after all.

Finally, as Andrew Adonis eloquently points out on page 13, the achievements Labour has celebrated in education in its three terms would not have been possible without a record investment in pay, resources and capital. The Tories may have usurped the bare bones of New Labour’s education programme, but they won’t find the meat to make it work in practice

Welfare

The Tories’ welfare policy seems to be predicated on the fact that they will be able to achieve what Labour has already set in train, but faster, and without the guarantee of support which is vital if the long-term unemployed, or long-term sick, are to find sustainable work. Given that the Conservatives’ first priority seems to be cuts to public spending, it is unlikely that they will be able to find the money to back up the ambitious programme they have for speeding up Labour’s system of getting people off benefits and back into work. The Tories’ claim that they can process incapacity benefit claimants faster than the 10,000 a week Labour has already set in train is scarcely believable. Labour has plans to double the Access to Work budget – terribly important if we are going to enable people who have disabilities to get the workplace adjustments they will need to carry out their work effectively. There is no such reciprocal pledge from the Conservatives which suggests that they will end up forcing people into unsuitable workplaces which will most likely exacerbate their condition.

The conditions which the Tories propose are also far more draconian than Labour’s – withdrawing all benefits for three years from people who refuse to take up ‘reasonable’ job offers. Obviously this will all come down to what a ‘reasonable’ job offer means. If the Conservatives are purely driven by getting people off benefit and into any old job, this will result in claimants being forced into unsuitable work.

The other main difference between Labour and the Tories is their approach to funding benefits levels. While the Tories’ instinct is to cut benefit levels, Labour has increased unemployment benefits consistently over the last 10 years. In countries which have good welfare-to-work outcomes, it is the coupling of conditionality with high levels of benefits which seems to work the best, so unless the Tories commit to this second bit, their policies are unlikely to support the numbers of people back into work they would like. The Tories are of course also opposed to the added investment Labour has made over the last 12 months to guarantee every young person who is at risk of long-term unemployment a job or training, which would in the end be the final undoing of their welfare strategy, confining another generation of young people to the scrapheap.