THE HISTORIAN Trevor Royle observes that late-17th century England saw: “An outpouring of Millennial visions and apocalyptic prophecies; the end of the world was forecast by various self-styled seers and prophets.” One of the most famous examples of this involved Thomas Beverley, who insisted that the Earth would expire in 1697. When he was pressed for an explanation in 1698 he explained that the cataclysmic event had, indeed, occurred but it had somehow passed unnoticed.

The spirit of Thomas Beverley will be witnessed again this week in Westminster. It will come with the second reading of the Education and Inspections Bill in the House of Commons. For months this moment has been built up as if it were a showdown that would determine the fate of the Prime Minister. Seats in the public gallery have been sought rather in the way that les tricoteuses reserved their seats in the front row, the better to see Madame Guillotine about her grisly work as they busied themselves with their knitting. Commentators have licked their lips at the prospect of, first, Tony Blair suffering an outright defeat in the Chamber and then, as a consolation, his having to rely on the Conservatives to pass his legislation.

Yet what will occur on Wednesday evening will be the mother of all damp squibs. This is not because the underrated Bill has little to commend it. It will be a squib because the politics have been so inflated in advance that reality could not but be an anti-climax. The second reading will see about 500 MPs traipse through the “aye” lobby. Mr Blair might not even need Tory backing if few SNP, Plaid Cymru and Northern Irish Members turn up to vote against him and — if he did need Tory votes — this alleged “humiliation” would be an embarrassment for 24 hours. He can cope with that.

Ah, some analysts will still insist, the demise of the planet might not seem to have taken place, but what about the wider consequences? What wider consequences? All that the exercise will have proved is that the hard-Left Campaign Group is a law unto itself (as it has been since 1997), that the passage of time means that there are more bitter ex-ministers sitting on the backbenches and that there are some in the Parliamentary Labour Party for whom comprehensive schools have a status close to that of a sacred relic.

Furthermore, this motley alliance is fast running out of issues to revolt against. The terrorism Bill and ID cards are all but done and John Hutton, the Work and Pensions Secretary, seems intent on (successfully) putting welfare reform on the statute book by boring any potential dissidents into submission. The rebels are almost redundant.

So that, frankly, is it as far as the thrills and spills at the Palace of Westminster are concerned, not only for 2006 but probably the next general election. It was (kind of) fun while it lasted. The sketchwriters will have to make do with fare such as whether a Minister of State at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had a hair transplant or which Tory MP has had a lobotomy since the recess. None of it, especially the education Bill, will be worth Mr Blair or Gordon Brown losing sleep over.

When it comes to the health service, though, the pair of them should be absolutely terrified. Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, will today release a statement about the financial deficits within the NHS that will be far more important politically than any of the huff and puff about “trust” schools that will be heard in the Chamber two days later. This may not, admittedly, be obvious from the Ms Hewitt’s delivery — she has the ability to make the speaking clock sound like AC/DC live in concert at the Hammersmith Apollo c.1980. But the fiasco on her watch is more significant than the education Bill tomfoolery.

It is so for several reasons. First, it affects real people (voters) in a highly visible fashion. You have to be a saddo to be interested in what exactly might happen when at the committee stage of a parliamentary measure. You are, however, more than entitled to notice that operations are being cancelled, medical procedures scaled back and doctors and nurses left needlessly idle because the local hospital is out of money. You would also be allowed to conclude that, if a Labour Government cannot run the NHS, then what in heaven’s name is it there for? You could also not be blamed for assuming that, if more money alone does not work for hospitals, then perhaps the whole of the attempt to drive up standards through a massive investment programme might be bogus.

If the stakes could not be lower on the education Bill, then they could not be higher on the health service. It is being whispered by some, who might be close to Ms Hewitt, that the whole affair is the fault of her predecessor, John Reid, whose new contracts with consultants, GPs and nurses has led to them being more productive and thus costing much more money. This is an unimpressive attempt at blame avoidance. The purpose of these contracts was that more could be secured from NHS staff if financial incentives were offered. There is a fundamental mistake of basic management at work here.

It is a situation that the top tier of government has to deal with swiftly. If the NHS fails, Labour fails; it is that brutal and simple. It seems to me that the Chancellor has little choice but to use whatever room exists in his Budget in ten days’ time to bail out the most desperate deficits and insist that a credible political team is dispatched to the Department of Health to ensure that this chaos is not repeated. Mr Blair and Mr Brown could do worse than ask the often underestimated Margaret Beckett to sort out the hospitals debacle. For on this one, the end of the (political) world really could happen.

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden