A dangerous political game

Blair under attack on NHS record

		By Nick Assinder BBC News Online political correspondent

If there is one thing political leaders should have learned over the years it is that using individual case histories as political ammunition is a hugely dangerous game.

But, despite the infamous "Jennifer's ear" case which rocked the 1992 general election campaign, the lesson still appears not to have hit home.

There is no doubt that Iain Duncan Smith is genuinely incensed about the alleged treatment of his constituent.

Duncan Smith introduced individual case

And it may be understandable that he wanted to use the case, with the family's consent, to underline the criticisms currently being aimed at the NHS and the government's record on health.

But he is now being accused of using the case, and two others, without checking his facts with the hospital concerned, which has robustly refuted the claims.

Genuine grievances

The prime minister, who dismissed Mr Duncan Smith's allegations during a heated question time clash, is also being accused of turning the case into a political football.

After the Commons clash his official spokesman offered intimate details of the medical histories of some of the individuals concerned, amid claims he had not sought permission to do so.

The arguments at the centre of this extraordinary row are hotly contested and there is no doubt that all the individuals concerned feel genuine grievances.

Blair angrily dismissed claims

But there is a wider issue here and it is about the wisdom of dragging individuals, no matter how willing, into such political bust ups.

There are astonishing parallels between the latest row and the Jennifer's ear case in 1992.

Deeply unpleasant

That centred around the anonymous appearance of five-year-old Jennifer Bennett in a Labour party political broadcast.

It was claimed she had waited almost a year for treatment for glue ear. But, as with the current row, there were conflicting stories and the little girl's parents got drawn into what became a deeply unpleasant and personalised political spat between the two parties.

It dominated the election campaign for weeks and, at the end of it, there were no winners.

Neither of the political parties emerged with much credit and polls suggested voters had been turned off by the entire affair.

At the time, politicians insisted the row had been unseemly and served only to harm the image of politicians. And that is the clear danger here.

Whatever the merits of the cases, they have now become political footballs and there is little chance that either party will emerge as white knights.

Voters will undoubtedly be moved by the stories of alleged ill-treatment of an elderly patient.

But they are also likely to be dismayed that the plight of such individuals has been drawn into a party political battle.

And, once again, it is likely this is a battle where there will be no winners.