British Politics Thread.

[Kirsten]

Britain wont survive another Tory government for 2020

[Haighus]

Well, hopefully the death of the NHS remains just a scary thought, I for one am fully supporting the BMA and junior doctors in fighting Jeremy C-word, as this is one of a few initial routes the Tories are trying to head down, with the aim of collapsing the NHS in my view. If they get halted in this and the stupid 7-day care thing (at least in full provision, a hub-and-spoke system could work, but that is basically what we have already with A&E), I reckon they won't be able to destroy the NHS. Oh, and if TTIP gets scrapped too.

[Kirsten]

they have already made progress in selling off the NHS though. significant parts of it are already gone. plus there was a headline the other day about a healthcare contract being awarded to a private company, despite the fact that the NHS bid for the job, and their bid was £130 odd million pounds cheaper than the company. So the NHS provide the cheaper, better option, and it goes to a corporation anyway. so many of the elements that surround the core of the NHS, doctors and hospitals, have already been sold off. drug supplies, deliveries, buildings, trusts, all gone, or in the process of going. it is rather like the discussion about privatising the prison system when it came up in the commons and it turned out that G4S already operated a number of institutions.

[Haighus]

Privatisation of the services is one thing, but I was thinking fundamentals in terms of the basic tenet of the NHS: free at the point of service. Admittedly service providers being outsourced does make it significantly easier for the Government to one day just stop footing the bill, but it is that final step that I am most concerned about. I feel like what the Tories are attempting to do at the moment is make the NHS collapse under its own weight (by pulling out the supports one by one like some stupid political Jenga game) and then hold up an exhausted and destroyed NHS and say: 'see, it doesn't work, we should go private'. I can't see any other possible way of them getting round the (rightfully) huge support for the existence of free healthcare. So in essence, I think they are trying to run the NHS into the ground and then hold up their hands and say it wasn't their fault, just was a flawed system, obviously...

[Kirsten]

yes absolutely, I agree. The final sell off is the really dreadful outcome, but I think we need to worry about what is going on before that. if they are allowed to run the service in to the ground, then it will be too late to stop it.

[Haighus]

Yeah, definitely. I think there is still chance to squeeze the brakes before the train goes out of control. The Government has been forced to back-track on things before, so there is still plenty of hope. I think that is why Jeremy is resorting to so much misinformation and deception.

[Denzark]

Do you Manxers get mainland England NHS Kirsten, or is your use of the word 'we' slightly disingenuous?

The thing about Jeremy Hunt and his policies is, rightly or wrongly, a government, especially a majority, has the mandate to make policy changes in every area, without taking the opinion of the subject matter experts within that ministry, into account. Examples: The Home Secretary does not have to have been a policeman. The Defence Secretary has never served.

With that in mind, you have to ask why Jeremy Hunt is doing what he is doing. If you think it is for ideological reasons, you have to consider that a large proportion of the public will not accept that.

If it is to deliver better cost effectiveness - welcome to Government service 2016! All departments are subject to cuts. You get used to doing more with the same funding, or the same with less funding. Everywhere in the public sector does it, and doctors can't be any different.

In the military, I have been subject to contractual changes and a reduction in pension. I am not allowed to strike. I get paid a thing called X-factor to cover the extra demands of military life - working on weekends with no notice, no ability to negotiate for pay, can't strike etc. Whilst I would rather the government found the funding from elsewhere, to allow doctors to remain on their current contracts - the Foreign Aid budget instantly jumps to mind - as a public sector worker, I don't see why junior doctors think they should be exempt from the public sector changes going on.

[Haighus]

They don't- the last offer laid down by the BMA wanted to cut the wage offered by the Government, in exchange for keeping the Saturday working safeguard, by not making it normal working hours. Most junior doctors are happy to accept a pay cut, its the working hours that are the really contentious issue.

Also bear in mind that the wage of junior doctors has changed at well below inflation for some time, so in practice they have been having wage cuts each year.

On the face of it, the cuts are for budgetary constraints (aside from the fact the whole point of the NHS being implemented is that it makes the Government money to have a healthy, productive population), but the way in which they are going about cutting services seems intended to cause the overall structure to fail, which seems to be ideologically driven (especially when considering the internal privatisation, and TTIP).

Also, the NHS and the Armed forces are not a great comparison. Yes, they are both public sector employers, but the Armed forces are a contingency, to be used if a situation arises. They aren't being strained unless there is a war to employ them in. The NHS is under constant use, and very close to it's total capacity too. Slicing chunks of the NHS doesn't potentially cause an effect in a few years if there is a war, it causes what is left to take a greater load from the people accessing the remaining services. It just feels very short-sighted to cut front-line NHS services (and the hugely over-burdened social services), seeing as good health is so central to everything else the country does. Even the armed forces. One of the initial catalysts leading ultimately to the formation of the NHS was the sheer number of young men being rejected from joining the British army on fitness grounds during the Second Boer war.

[Denzark]

Is 'Second Boer War' a typo Haighus - I never knew this, always thought it was after WWII, and the Wikipedia history (best I can do at short notice) does not mention the Boer War.

As to comparison and contingency, the figures that in only 1 year since 1945, has a British Serviceman not died on active service, makes one think about contingency versus constant use. Your talk about lack of strain except in War does not match the reality of current overstretch - but I digress.

But, not to take away from the debate, the problem with the NHS is that it was never envisaged for anything other than a contingency for when things went wrong. Increasing population both through age and migration means that it is always at a breaking point at the moment. Something has to give - all departments are constricting and looking for savings - the NHS is no different and even ring fencing doesn't help.

Tbh I am not saying Hunt is right - I don't know enough about it. I am just saying any government, especially a majority (no matter how slim) has a mandate to make policy.

[grimmas]

There's no problem with the NHS it's our greatest social advance for a very long time. The problem is a society in which people have forgotten that all the rights and entitlements also come with responsibilities. Everybody (with a very small number of exceptions who will require the help of the rest of us) needs to contribute (and actually contribute being a critic isn't contributing) some will be able to contribute more than others but that doesn't matter so long as everyone does somthing. That's how a healthy society functions. No body gets to opt out and still recieve the rewards.