Skip to main content

Worthless promises on the NHS

Mr Cameron's shameless 'promise' to provide a 'seven-day a week' NHS has rightly been condemned by the BMA, the doctor's association.  What Mr Cameron needs to demonstrate his how he would fill the £30 bn gap in funding that will develop by 2020.  Unless any of the political parties can explain that then their promises are empty rhetoric.

The coalition government has effectively cut funding for the NHS at a time when demand on its services is increasing.  Mr Cameron was quick to boast in his interview with Jeremy Paxman this week that spending on the NHS has increased.  What he failed to say was that it was by just 0.9% per year, the lowest levels on record.  With 40% cuts in local authority funding leading to 20% cuts in social care the burden on the NHS has increased.  This is a direct result of government policies.  In addition the NHS has had to find £20 bn in 'efficiency savings' at a time of complex 'top down' reorganisation imposed by the government - a government that promised there would be no 'top down' reorganisation.  It broke the promise to 'ring fence' funding; it broke the promise for no 'top down' reorganisation, with the result that the NHS is on the brink of crisis.

So what does the Tory party offer? They say that the £30 bn will be found through 'efficiency savings'.  It has got to the point where there is little left of a credible strategy for the NHS.  It is head- in-the-sand time and the promises offered are worthless unless they can be backed by a credible financial plan.

The crisis in the NHS is of the government's making. Their twists and turns and promises are shameless.

We need to hear credible policies on the NHS from the leaders of the main political parties. Until they provide them, their promises are worthless.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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