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

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