Skip to main content

No More Games - BMA campaign

Doctors’ leaders have today unveiled a major new campaign ahead of the General Election calling for an open and honest public debate about securing the future of the NHS and an end to political game playing with the nation’s health.

The BMA’s campaign – No More Games – calls for:

No More Games with the public’s health
No More Games with NHS funding
No More Games with who’s providing patient care
The launch of the campaign comes as a new poll highlights a marked increase in public feeling that politicians are putting votes over patients, with 77 per cent believing political parties to be designing health policies to win votes, rather than focusing what is best for the NHS.

As part of the campaign, the BMA has today unveiled a new poster at thousands of sites to bring the campaign to the public’s attention. The poster, featuring a giant toy tower representing the NHS, will feature on billboards and bus shelters.

The BMA is now calling on the public to add their voices to those of doctors across the country in calling for all political parties to stop the game playing and have an open and honest public debate about securing the future of the NHS.

Commenting, BMA council chair, Dr Mark Porter, said:

“The NHS is one of the UK’s towering achievements, but for too long it has been used to play political games. With health the public’s number one election issue2, this game playing is on the rise with all political parties laying the blame for the current NHS crisis at each other’s door rather than facing the problem head on.

“Against the background of the worst A&E waiting time figures for a decade3,the public is being treated to claims and counter claims from political parties about ‘weaponising’ the health service4, ‘betraying’5 the public’s trust on the NHS. Caught in the middle are thousands of patients and NHS staff waiting for real, evidenced solutions.

“The BMA is calling for an open and honest debate in which all political parties come together with the public to ensure the long-term future of the NHS. We want to see a stop to the headline-grabbing such as 48-hour targets for GP appointments6, payments for dementia diagnoses7 and unfunded budget pledges8.

“It is not just doctors sounding this call – 77 per cent of the public believe politicians are designing health policies simply to win votes.

“The scale of the campaign just goes to demonstrate just how concerned doctors are, and we aim to ensure that every member of the public sees it and adds their voice to ours in calling for an end to the game-playing and the start of an open and honest public debate on how we create a long-term, sustainable plan for the NHS.”

 

Read Ray'a Novel: It wasn't always late summer 

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

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

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