LABOUR has finally learned to harness the power of the internet - and all it took was a global row about whether the NHS was a national treasure or a collection of 'death panels' choosing who to kill and save.

The social networking website Twitter was bombarded with messages of support for our health service. Gordon Brown weighed in with: `NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there.'

Andy Burnham, the health secretary and Leigh MP, `tweeted' he was `over the moon' with the support, adding that the NHS was second in his affections only to Everton FC. (One hopes his wife does not use Twitter.)

Success

Politically, it was a huge success. It put the Conservatives on the back foot on a critical election issue. David Cameron has spent a huge amount of time and effort establishing himself in the public mind as a supporter of the NHS. But here we had outspoken Tory Euro-MP Dan Hannan appearing on American network news, saying he would not wish our health service `on anyone'.

For a Labour party struggling in the polls, this is manna from heaven. The party's entire pre-election strategy has been to paint the Tories as devious, two-faced pragmatists. Doing one thing (praising the NHS) to gain power, then doing another (dismantling the NHS) once in control. But people seem to trust Mr Cameron so they have refined the tactic: the Tory leader might be genuine, they say, but scratch the skin of the party and its true colours bleed through. Mr Hannan has given them real evidence not just because of what he said, but because he said it knowing the difficulties it would cause his party leader. `Look,' whisper Labour. `Is David Cameron really in control?'

So a good week for Labour - and a good week for Twitter. But has it been a good week for intelligent debate, or for those who care about the quality of our health services? No.

The pro-NHS campaign on Twitter has taken the form of people repeating slogans of support or relating anecdotes about how the NHS helped them or their family. It may win the shouting match. But it doesn't win the argument. And there is an argument to be won.

The NHS was founded on noble principles. The quality of care you get should not be dependent on the amount of money you have. Everyone is entitled to an excellent service, by virtue of being members of society. And those who can afford to pay more to fund such a system should do so.

Individual rights and responsibilities

NHS supporters have tended to compare the situation here with America. They pillory a country where millions of people don't have health insurance, and therefore precious little care should they fall ill. We are not like the Americans. Their society is shaped around individual rights and responsibilities, and a minimal role for the state. We are social democrats, we believe in society, we believe the government has a role in shaping that society.

For a better comparison we should look to France whose healthcare, like ours, was based on the Beveridge report of 1942. They have compulsory, state-financed health insurance, brokered by non-profit trusts. The amount you pay depends on the amount you earn. Every legal resident of France is covered.

The difference is that people have choice over treatment. They can see a specialist straight away. They can get scans straight away. And there is competition among providers to be the best, which isn't the case in Britain. Yet the French system still seems to satisfy all the founding principles of the NHS. And when the World Health Organisation ranked care systems in 2000, France was top. The UK was 18th, behind Greece and Oman. The USA was 37th.

Am I suggesting we scrap the NHS and `go French'? Absolutely not. There are good moral and financial arguments for our system. It minimises red tape because we don't have to pay bills and then claim them back. Having a government- owned provider of care creates a patient-centred ethos: doctors are less worried about the balance sheet, and getting more people through the door, and more worried about the person lying on the table in front of them. And one of the reasons the French have arguably better care is that they spend more money on health.

But it is a legitimate debate, and one politicians should not be afraid of having. Don't expect it from David Cameron; he knows the NHS is a `red-line' issue. Raise it, and he will be swept away in a wave of emotion and ignorance. And yet there are so many anecdotes about the NHS. I could tell you about the fantastic GP who saved my life; I could also tell you about the time I went into a surgery for an important appointment and had to walk out when I still hadn't been called an hour after my allotted time.

It's complicated, you see. Twitter might have proved its use for campaigning. I'm not sure it's always so good for our intellectual health.

To fume it may concern

THE internet isn't all bad, though.

I'm currently quitting smoking. No sooner did I grumble on my blog about the cost of nicotine patches - about the same as cigarettes - than I got a call from Manchester's Smoking Cessation Service.

Apparently the city's anti-smoking `tsar' Pat Karney had read my post and wanted me to know my options.

Say what you like about Pat, he's committed to the cause. I honestly believe he'd knock on the door of every individual smoker if he had the time. And the fear of him ringing me at 2am if he hears I've fallen off the wagon is motivation enough to carry on.

Read David Ottewell's Politics Blog here Tweet