Skip to main content

Cynical Tory pledge to increase number of GPs

After a decade of austerity, the Tories are now cynically throwing spending pledges around like confetti. Today they are pledging to increase the number of GPs.  They have made such pledges before and have failed to meet them.    Why believe them now?

Staff shortages in the NHS are a significant factor in missing targets and increasing waiting times and lists.  Too many people are waiting too long for an appointment to see their GP.  Too many practices are reliant on locum supply.

in 10 years the NHS will have a shortfall of 108,000 full-time equivalent nurses. 

A recent report concluded that "on current trends", in 10 years the NHS will have a shortfall of 108,000 full-time equivalent nurses.   Filling that gap would require a massive 5,000 additional nurses in training each year.  It will also need an equivalent number of foreign nurses to be recruited - and this at a time when the uncertainty of Brexit has led to a loss of staff.

There is no magic wand. 

The numbers of GPs are expected to continue to fall.  There is no magic wand.  Training more GPs requires teachers in our medical schools and these are already stretched.  It requires a massive investment in the resources needed.

A fourfold increase in the current workforce development budget is required.  NHS leaders have begged politicians not to cynically weaponise health service.  

But after a decade of effective cuts and loss of staff, the Tories are desperate to hide the consequences of their botched reforms and savage underfunding.  

There is a simple truth. The Tories just cannot be trusted with the NHS.











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...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...