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

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't