Skip to main content

Political soundbites on the NHS are not enough

Once again the BMA are warning of the problems faced by an overstretched and underfunded NHS. Now it gives a clear warning that treating the NHS as a political football in the run up to the general election in May is not the way forward.  The NHS needs a period of long-term, sustainable investment, and not to be used as fodder in the election with pledges to throw emergency money at the problems.

We need a coordinated strategy that puts patient care at the heart of the NHS. Labour is the party of the NHS. It can be proud of its history. But it must produce a clear and realistic strategy.  Recent international reports have demonstrated that our NHS is a jewel in our crown. It still leads the world in many regards. But we know it is overstretched. We know that waiting lists are getting longer and the system can breakdown. The staff work hard enough. They deserve better than political sound bites.

The Labour party must show that it can produce a clear and responsible strategy for the NHS and for social care. That will not be easy because it will require funding - not emergency funding, but sustainable long-term commitment.

In response to the Labour Party's dossier on the future of the NHS, Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair, said:

“We have repeatedly voiced our concerns that year-on-year reductions in real term NHS funding are continuing to threaten the quality of patient care and access to it. Equally, we believe that the changes to the NHS pursued by successive governments, such as increased privatisation and competition, are eroding the core principles of our healthcare system.

“Instead of focusing on delivering high-quality care for patients, the NHS is being damaged by distracting reorganisation and increasing transaction costs.

“It is a reflection on how hard front-line staff are working that the quality of patient care has so far been protected, and indeed improved, despite years of underinvestment, but the NHS has reached a crossroads and pressure on services is now at a critical point with cracks beginning to appear.

“For patients this means unacceptable waits for treatment that increasingly fail to meet the government’s targets, the increasingly restricted access to some services including operations such as knee and hip replacements, and longer queues in our GP surgeries and emergency departments.

“A doctor's primary duty is to their patient. It is vital that decisions around patient care are clinically not politically led. It is essential that the next government works in partnership with doctors to ensure the future development of the NHS and provide better coordinated care developed around patients’ needs.

“The NHS needs more than party political promises to survive; it needs long-term, sustainable investment to ensure there are enough staff and resources to meet rising demand and provide the best quality care for our patients.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha