Skip to main content

Tory promises on NHS meaningless.



Some years ago now Prime Minister David Cameron assured voters that the NHS was 'safe' in Tory hands.  It was in 2006 in his speech bringing to end the Tory Party conference that year.  And here is the irony.  Not only did he say it would be safe in his hands but he also said this:

"When your family relies on the NHS all of the time - day after day, night after night - you know how precious it is.

"So, for me, it is not just a question of saying the NHS is safe in my hands - of course it will be. My family is so often in the hands of the NHS, so I want them to be safe there."

And then he promised this: "no more pointless and disruptive reorganisations". Instead, change would be "driven by the wishes and needs of NHS professionals and patients".

Fast forward to 2015 and his governments have imposed a pointless and disruptive reorganisation of the NHS and starved it of funding.  They have brought the NHS to crisis and with junior doctors hitting the streets in demonstrations. 

The crisis has been brought home by the revelation today that NHS trusts in England have accumulated almost £1 bn of deficit in just three months of the financial year.   The NHS is almost on its knees and on course for an annual deficit of £2 bn and the impact on the ground is devastating with  waiting time targets missed.  

Meanwhile the consequences of falling morale and difficulty in staffing levels has led to a soaring bill for agency and other temporary employees.

Today the BMA, the doctor's representative body has issued a stark warning that the NHS faces a crisis 'the like of which we have never seen' and highlighted the £22 bn funding gap and warned of the potential for a winter crisis stretching beyond that  with which the NHS is now able to cope.  

Dr Ian Wilson, BMA representative body chair, said:

“Despite what politicians claim, NHS funding has not kept up with rising patient demand and the increased cost of delivering care. The extra funding promised by the government is barely enough for the NHS to stand still. The result is a health service that is bucking at the seams, relying on emergency bailouts and with no real solution to the £22bn funding gap facing it.

“With winter just around the corner, there is a real risk to the quality of patient care as pressure on services and staff will only intensify.

“The government must wake up and take action. The NHS is renowned as the most efficient health service in the world1, but it cannot continue to do more with less. We need a long-term funding plan rather than a short-term fixes in order to secure the future of the NHS and stop it from lurching from one crisis to another.”

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