[Tubby Isaacs]

The full thing on the NHS reforms is worth reading.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... s/overview

They're certainly right about chaotic announcements. But they do allow that there is a lot of duplication, confused accountability, and there should be much less of that without NHS England, with a much clearer structure. One of the points made is that the improvements may not be felt before the next election. Perhaps this is the Government has underestimated the speed they'll work, or perhaps this is a genuine long term change that will pay off, of the sort that people say they want politicians to do.

And there's this.

As a further indication of how poorly planned this NHS reorganisation has been, a row has broken out between NHSE and the government over the money required to pay ICB staff’s redundancy packages. Rachel Reeves reportedly refused Wes Streeting’s request to provide the NHS with £1.3 billion (bn) of additional funding to cover that cost.30
As a result, ICBs are reporting that they will not be able to lay off staff in this financial year, given existing allocations.31 That has left systems in suspended animation, unable to go ahead with reforms and with staff having little motivation or incentive to deliver the government’s agenda while there is so much uncertainty over their own roles.

Is that bad planning or is that the Health Secretary trying to get more money out of the Chancellor? Presumably there's some middle ground between no redundancies now and 12,500. The Chancellor and Chief Secretary are within their rights, I'd say, to argue that health has had a lot more money than other areas (and did under Johnson-Sunak) so perhaps it could organize better. Easy to say from here, of course.