Disappointed by Labour candidate's attitude to NHS

[Sunseed]

I'm still undecided about which of our local candidates to vote for so went to an Election Hustings last night to get a better feel for each of them. There was a question raised about the NHS and what could/should be done to fix it. The Lib Dem stance is to throw more money at it using 1p increase to income tax. The Tory candidate said that unqualified politicians have been kicking it about for years, it's time to take the politics out of the NHS and they'd like to see a Royal Commission or similar neutral set up to have a thorough review. The Labour candidate got very agitated and said that the NHS should definitely remain as a political football and then waffled on about Nye Bevan.

I may be very naïve, but I found his response so disrespectful of patients, families and staff - all of whom surely just want to be able to either receive or deliver a world-class health service regardless of an individual's political views.

Is this really how the Labour Party regard the NHS? An entity with which to score points against the opposition? There was no humanity of thought or compassion being expressed in his sentiments. No suggestion at all that patient care should be at the heart of things, that didn't seem to matter at all.

Was their comment in response to the Tory candidate trying to gloss over all the harm they've done to the NHS?

The NHS is a political issue as that is where its funding comes from. There's also the issue with the US pharma industry wanting access to it, and to changing our drug licensing regulations. It's impossible for it not to be political.

Labour's position can be read in their manifesto. All the I for sure you need is here:

labour.org.uk/page/labours-nhs-rescue-plan/

I'm very much doubting that he said it should remain a "political football", are you paraphrasing?

No, not paraphrasing, that's what took me aback. He may have been particularly defensive as he's the seat incumbent perhaps.

Tory wasn't glossing over the issue, he was quite upfront that things aren't right but was daring to suggest that maybe politicians aren't best placed to be the ones to come up with workable solutions, hence a Royal Commission review and proposals might be a better way forward.

I can’t really say, as I wasn’t there, but my impression would be that this is probably a poorly worded response to the idea from the Conservatives that the NHS shouldn’t be “politicised”.

For me, I feel that you have to take the view of the policies. Matt Hancock from the Conservatives have admitted that drugs prices will rise in the NHS if we do a deal with the US (which Johnson and Trump want to do).

Millions of pounds of contracts have already gone to US companies and Virgin etc under these conservative governments.

It’s only 300 seats in it in Hastings. Labour is the only vote that counts there to save the NHS.

If as Remainers are right and EU ddrugs will be forever lost to us - where would you propose we get them other than the USA?

Pharma companies in the US which are the same companies operating in the EU already have access to the UK drug market but EU tariffs make them more expensive. Without tariffs the US generic drugs would be cheaper than EU ones. They would also make it much harder for Corbyn's 'National Drugs' idea to setup and operate.

I don’t object to non-political body doing planning for nhs - perhaps presenting decisions we have to make as a nation - like NICE does. The big question is whether this apolitical body will consider useful issues: eg everyone knows we need more nurses - it would be silly to make a body to just tell us that.

But what is the best way to spend money to get more nurses? We need some evidence-based policy - ie is it more effective to spend money a) making more nurse-training Places b) making a different pathway of training c) recruiting from abroad d) incentivising nurses to stay on rather than retiring/leaving etc? This would help to inform decisions.

The thing is, Labour do use evidence based policy. They have worked with professionals (doctors / nurses in the NHS, but also teachers, university lecturers etc) to come up with the policies.

People often claim that Labour just want to 'throw money at the problem', but it's not true, it's all been worked through using both policy analysis and also by engaging directly with the people on the ground.

From what I've seen, literally every issue or concern you try to raise with Labour representatives they find some way to get back onto the rails of their vague narrative about the NHS.

The thing I find most disappointing is that if you try to get into the details, even the details of the NHS, or costing etc they STILL avoid avoid avoid and get back onto generalities and bluster.

It's so disappointing, they are all prevarication and not living in the same planet as everyone else.

I'll probably just vote based on brexit, that's the only issue anyone has any consistency on.

Big changes are not a good idea. Labour wasted a lot on nhs computer system that didn’t work.

But tories have underfunded and made health system worse and more expensive to fix.

and then waffled on about Nye Bevan

That’s because the Labour Party want to talk about the NHS at its inception. Not about the dysfunctional behemoth it has become. The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world. Think about that. Bloated. Chucking money at it like the last Labour government did for 13 years didn’t work. Scandal after scandal and its fanatical cheerleaders keep chanting the same line about evil Tories. It requires serious review because this isn’t 1947 and trading on the back catalogue while ignoring the 21st century failures is very tiresome

NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world. Think about that. Bloated. Chucking money at it like the last Labour government did for 13 years didn’t work. Scandal after scandal and its fanatical cheerleaders keep chanting the same line about evil Tories. It requires serious review because this isn’t 1947 and trading on the back catalogue while ignoring the 21st century failures is very tiresome

^^ This.

I expect any serious review to conclude that we need a Western European style health system ASAP.

they STILL avoid avoid avoid and get back onto generalities and bluster

Avoidance and blister? That sounds more like Boris Johnson, to be honest.

yeah, can't wait till I have to pay for separate health insurance and/or every time I need to see a GP

Labour don’t want to fix the NHS because they would then have nothing to beat the Torys with. The Torres are never going to privatise the NHS. Labour know this but they need to keep banging that drum to scare the voters. It’s pathetic and people are waking up to it.

Um. Well that's really not Conservative party policy which is intriguing

The Tories are already privatising the NHS. A private profit making provider provides Health Visitors in my trust. The service has deteriorated as a result the HVs don't like it. Private providers provide many of the out of hours services. This is already happening

The thing is, Labour do use evidence based policy. They have worked with professionals (doctors / nurses in the NHS, but also teachers, university lecturers etc) to come up with the policies.

People often claim that Labour just want to 'throw money at the problem', but it's not true, it's all been worked through using both policy analysis and also by engaging directly with the people on the ground.

^ if labour did use evidence based policy they wouldn't be saying the NHS needs more money.

No other country on the planet copies this failed paradigm. Nowhere. The last time Labour were in power, they spent 13 years firehosing money at the NHS and the upshot was a scandal in the Midlands in which hundreds of patients died unnecessarily. The last Labour government saddled the UK with 200 billions of PFI liabilities. But the Labour Party keep hoisting this lethally dysfunctional bloated institution up and screaming about evil Tories. Whilst failing to do anything about the serious, systemic problems in this antiquated relic

The other thing that I was wondering about was that the 1942 Beveridge Report included recommendations for the NHS to deliver adult social care, thus truly fulfilling the "cradle to grave" idea. But my understanding is that this part was dropped by Nye Bevan in order for him to be able to get the rest of the Act through Parliament.

I can't help wondering how much better the service would be today if the adult social care bit had been included and how much more joined up the delivery of care to the end-user would be. Which goes back to my original concern about the patients and staff should be at the heart of this, not the opportunity for political points-scoring.

A Conservative acknowledging fault in the way they've managed the NHS is akin to an abuser admitting fault and offering some diamonds if you'll stay with him, only to then whip the diamonds away once they've won you back.

As mentioned above, Labour do take an evidence based approach. What is needed is both more money and greater efficiency, it's not an either/ or situation.

Not sure I agree with your analogy there MrsMaiselsMuff